NZ542337A - Method and system of evaluation of alignment of relationships within or between entities - Google Patents

Abstract

A method of evaluation of the state of an entity's sense of self or culture (henceforth Identity Rating), is disclosed. The method includes the steps of: (a) collecting data in the form of responses from an entity via a questionnaire which includes questions on predetermined aspects of the entity's sense of self or culture, where the aspects includes at least one of values, purposes, and or inclusive focus related to the entity, wherein the questions require the entity to select, prioritise and/or submit one or more aspects; (b) storing the collected data on an electronic storage device; (c) manipulating the stored collected data to generate a subsequent questionnaire including questions on aspects that have been most-selected, highest prioritised and/or frequently submitted from the preceding questionnaire and collecting data in the form of further responses, and (d) repeating the above steps for a predetermined number of occurrences.

Description

/ PATENTS FORM NO. 5 Fee No. 4: $250.00 PATENTS ACT 1953 COMPLETE SPECIFICATION After Provisional No: 542337 and 549486 Dated: 16 SEP 2005 Method and System of Evaluation of Alignment of Relationships within or between Entities We Vortex Technology Services Limited, a New Zealand company of 3 Roland Lane, Christchurch 8008, New Zealand hereby declare the invention for which l/we pray that a patent may be granted to me/us, and the method by which it is to be performed to be particularly described in ' and by the following statement: Intellectual Property Office of N.2. 21 SEP 2006 1 RECEIVED Method and System of Evaluation of Alignment of Relationships within or between Entities Technical Field The present invention relates to a diagnostic system capable of establishing the 5 alignment of relationships within or between entities.

Background Art The management of businesses use a variety of financial and non-financial metrics in order to analyse and improve the performance of their companies. Furthermore, business managers are continually seeking new methods to gauge the health of their 10 businesses that can lead to increased performance.

Research suggests that businesses with a strong purpose and strong values significantly outperform the stock market in financial terms. Performance data shows these businesses outperform their competitors1. Evidence also suggests the activities of these businesses contribute more to society2.

The theory of dissipative structures provides an insight into the reasons why these businesses perform exceptionally well. Dissipative structures are ones in which large-scale order arises through the behaviour of the individual particles. A whirlpool is an example of a dissipative structure. Energy flows through the system most efficiently when the particles are aligned.

In physical systems, it is the interaction between neighbouring particles that creates the possibility of widespread alignment within the system. On the human level, it can be argued that actions are the medium through which employees communicate their intentions, their purpose and values that are guiding their actions. This communication of intention is what allows them to act in harmony, rather than at 25 cross-purposes. A simple example of this is the process of alignment that occurs 2 when two people move to avoid each other as they pass on the street. A slight movement by one person signals their intention to veer to one side, and if the other person realises this, he or she responds accordingly.

People can share a common purpose and yet not work together efficiently, due to 5 conflicting values - disagreement about the ways in which they should achieve their purpose. If most or all of the employees in a business are actively guided by the same values, and are working towards the same purpose, the business's culture can be said to be aligned. It is this alignment that makes them a purpose-and-values-driven business. In effect the business is behaving as a dissipative structure, 10 increasing energy flows (in this case the financial performance of the business) through the creation of large-scale order from the alignment of employee actions around a common purpose and set of values.

An implication of the above theory is that the difference in performance between purpose-and-values-guided businesses and other businesses is at least partly due to 15 the energy wasted when employees who are guided by different values interact. In non purpose-and-values-guided businesses, there are many more cases of such interactions, resulting in a greater amount of wasted energy.

It is clearly of importance to managers to be able to accurately assess the strength of their business's culture, in a way that allows them to observe changes over time so 20 as to be able to assess the effect of various management initiatives and processes that are intended to enhance the business's culture.

As it is the actions of the individual employees, and their interactions, that create and sustain the culture of a business, we can expect that precise and accurate data can be obtained by surveying the employees within a business in order to discover which 25 purpose and values guide their actions. 3 The best current methods of collecting data directly from employees are all limited in various ways. Some of these limitations, such as over-reliance on anecdotal or non-representative evidence, indiscriminate questions, biased data due to confidentiality concerns, and inability to track changes accurately across time, may be avoided by 5 careful questionnaire design. However, there is a serious limitation that pervades the current published methods of obtaining data from employees. This is that they do not provide a truly accurate measure of the strength of alignment within a business's culture.

There are two reasons for this limitation. The first is that, if a list of values is provided 10 for the employees to choose from, it is necessarily selective. At worst, this may result in a question that refers only to the business's core values, asking the employees whether they agree or disagree with them. Even if a wider choice is provided, the values not on the list are grouped in a single 'Other* category. This provides a skewed picture of the culture, overemphasising the importance of the named values.

The second reason why current methods do not provide an accurate measure of cultural alignment is that the underlying worldview on which they are based does not place sufficient emphasis on the interactions between employees. If 70% of employees state they are guided by the core values, this is taken as a straight 70% agreement rating. However, when the culture is considered from the viewpoint of the 20 interactions occurring, it can be seen that only 70% x 70% = 49% of the interactions are between those who share the business's values. A maximum of another 30%x30%=9% of interactions might be aligned, if the 30% minority of employees all share the same non-core values. The standard method of calculation has therefore overestimated the strength of alignment within the culture by between 12% and 21%.

Further problems arise when the business has more than one core value. If one of these values is more pervasive within the culture than another, current methods of 4 reaching a single rating, such as taking the average of the scores for each value, again provide inaccurate measures of the overall alignment of the culture.

If a business takes its purpose and values seriously, and recognises the connection between the alignment within its culture and its performance, it will not be satisfied 5 with an inaccurate and possibly biased measure of its culture. One objective of the present invention is to provide a method of applying a questionnaire and analysing the results gained whereby business managers can accurately evaluate the presence and strength of the purpose and values in their business as an indicator of operational health and future performance potential.

Furthermore, while businesses (and other organizations) are dissipative structures of one form, it must be recognized that individuals themselves are also dissipative structures both physically and psychologically. It is of as much benefit to the individual to ensure that the different aspects of his or her self and life are aligned as it is to a business to ensure that its employees are aligned. Another objective of the 15 present invention, therefore, is to provide a means for individuals to assess and enhance the degree to which their beliefs and actions in different aspects of their lives are aligned around a core purpose and values.

Relationships can be internal as described above, but also external. Given that even the most fleeting of relationships - two people passing in the street - results in the 20 creation of an (admittedly transitory) dissipative structure, external relationships have the same conditions for success as internal ones; namely, that the purpose and values (whether explicit or implicit) of the two entities are sufficiently similar as to allow for effective interaction to occur.

A further result of the present invention is that the business's culture is maintained 25 through autopoietic processes (feedback loops). The method of the present invention as outlined below serves to strengthen these autopoietic processes and thereby help the organization to maintain the strength of its culture.

The method may be used for the purpose of evaluating the current state of an entity to show how aligned the entity is around a purpose and core values, and/or for the purpose of comparing two entities in order to establish the degree of alignment between them. The strength of alignment is an indicator of the expected success of 5 the relationship. The method may also be used to provide feedback on the alignment of others' perceptions of an entity with its own self-perception.

The benefits of the method include: that it allows management techniques to be effectively correlated with the state of a business or organization's culture; that it enhances the work of those who match entities and map relationships (such as 10 recruitment agencies and networking websites); and that the nature of the questionnaire itself serves to benefit individual entities through raising their autopoietic processes to a conscious level, enhancing their ability to align themselves around their purpose and values. By standardizing the process through which these uses are applied, and thereby establishing a standard currency of relationships, the 15 present invention enables a growing network of uses and applications that may be used to further strengthen the benefits it provides to its users.

No admission is made that any reference constitutes relevant prior art. The discussion of the references states what their authors assert, and the applicant reserves the right to challenge the accuracy and pertinence of the cited documents.

It is thus desirable to provide a diagnostic system capable of: - establishing a standard currency of relationships within and between entities, by enabling quantification of the degree of alignment within an entity's sense of self or culture, and between the sense of selfs and/or cultures of two or more entities; - providing a tool to assist businesses and other organizations to improve their financial and non-financial performance by both assessing and enhancing the 6 state of their culture in general, and/or the degree to which their employees share a common purpose and values in particular; - providing a tool to assist individuals to enhance their success, by aligning their intra-personal and interpersonal relationships; - providing such a tool as described above thereby allowing for accurate relationship matching services to be provided based on the purpose and values of the entities being matched; thereby facilitating the creation and development of effective relationships of various types, and - providing the tools as described above through the use of an electronic or 10 computer program, to enable the tools to be applied in a timely way that cannot be done through paper-based survey methods.

It is a further object of the present invention to address the above-described issues, or at least provide the public with a useful choice.

It is acknowledged that the term 'comprise' may, under varying jurisdictions, be 15 attributed with either an exclusive or an inclusive meaning. For the purpose of this specification, and unless otherwise noted, the term 'comprise' shall have an inclusive meaning - i.e. that it will be taken to mean an inclusion of not only the listed components it directly references, but also other non-specified components or elements. This rationale will also be used when the term 'comprised' or 'comprising' 20 is used in relation to one or more steps in a method or process.

Disclosure of invention According to one aspect of the present invention there is provided a method of evaluation of the state of an entity's sense of self or culture (henceforth Identity Rating), said method including the steps of: 7 - collecting data in the form of responses from an entity via a questionnaire including questions on predetermined aspects of the entity's sense of self or culture, said aspects including at least one of values, purposes, and/or inclusive focus related to said entity, wherein said questions requires the entity to select, prioritise and/or submit one or more said aspects, - storing the collected data on an electronic storage device; - manipulating the stored collected data to generate a subsequent questionnaire including questions on aspects that have been most-selected, highest prioritised and/or frequently submitted from the preceding questionnaire and collecting data in the form of further responses, and - repeating the above steps for a predetermined number of occurrences.

The predetermined number of occurrences is preferably a sufficient number of instances to ensure the validity of the data collected.

Preferably, said method further includes the step of: - performing calculations to quantify said collected data for the entity's Identity Rating on a percentage scale, against a predetermined range of values stored on an electronic storage device.

According to one embodiment, said collected responses are assigned a numerical equivalence from a range of predetermined increments pre-generated and stored on an electronic storage device.

Preferably, said questionnaire may be administered electronically (e.g. via the Internet or on an intranet), manually or even verbally, in each instance said collected responses being stored and manipulated by a computer/processor and electronic storage means, e.g. a PC, network sever, laptop, PDA, and the like.

Preferably, said method further includes the step of: - removing the least-selected, lowest prioritised or infrequently submitted aspects from questions incorporated in a subsequently generated questionnaire and storing said subsequently generated questionnaire on an electronic storage device.

IPONZ 27 FEB 2008 As used herein, the term entity includes an individual, an organization, employees of a business, and the like.

The aspects of the entity's sense of self or culture of values, purposes, and/or inclusive focus as used herein are respectively defined as including, but not limited 5 to: - values: - issues of self worth; integrity; esteem; personal, family and work standards; ethics; character; judgement; principle; assessment and the like - purpose: - issues of intent; aim; drive; direction; faith; ambition; aspirations; desire; expectation; principle; mission; focus; function; goals; objective and the like, and - inclusive focus: - the extent to which the entity focuses on or more measures of success including self-preservation; self-image; intra-group relationships; extra-group relationships; and relationship to their wider environment.

Traditional survey-based technology cannot effectively or adequately collect the data 15 needed to accurately determine said predetermined aspects of the entity's sense of self or culture, due to the traditional survey's reliance on static/fixed lists of purposes and values. Using such fixed lists, it is impractical to list an inordinate range of purposes or values, while only showing a restricted range is potentially biasing.

In order to accurately measure the entity's Identity Rating, the number of times that 20 each purpose or value should be listed as an option is in proportion to its preponderance within that entity. Moreover, such a technique also helps to raise awareness of which purposes or values are more prevalent within the entity, this increased awareness potentially encouraging further alignment around those purposes or values. 9 Application of the above-described means of rating the purposes and values presented to the entity in successive questionnaires overcomes the aforementioned drawbacks.

The respondent entity undertaking the questionnaire may be given a random order list of purposes, or values to select from.

The purpose or values selected are compared with a master list of purposes and values stored as a database and the unique numerical codes associated with the purpose or values chosen are stored as the response to the question. While the codes themselves are unique, any purposes or values regarded as identical or equivalent may be stored as synonyms. For example, 'Customer focus' and 'Consumer focus' may share the same 10 code.

If the respondent entity wishes to select an unlisted purpose or value, it may be submitted by the entity into an "Other" box. The submitted purpose or values is then added to the available list for the next questionnaire. The submitted purpose or value is also added to a master list, if not already listed and assigned a unique numerical code.

After each questionnaire is completed, the total number of votes divided by number of appearances is calculated for each purpose or value. The purposes, or values, with the highest calculated scores appear on the list for the next questionnaire. If two purposes or values have an equally high score, the one with most appearances is retained.

Thus, according to further preferred embodiments of the present invention, - a purpose or values selected by the entity is compared with a stored master list of purposes and values.

IPONZ 2 7 FEB 2008 - if an entity wishes to select an unlisted purpose or value, it may be submitted by the entity as part of the entities collected responses, said submitted purpose or values then being added to the selectable list of purpose or values for said subsequently generated questionnaire. - said submitted purpose or value is compared to a master list of purposes or values and added if not present. - after completion of each questionnaire, a number of selections for a individual purpose or value is divided by number of selectable appearances of the purpose or value, wherein the purpose or value, with the highest calculated result are listed as selectable purposes, or values on a subsequently generated questionnaire. - if two purposes or values have an equal calculated result, the purpose or value with most appearances is retained.

According to a further aspect of the present invention there is provided a method of validity testing results obtained from said method of evaluation substantially as described herein, said validity testing method including the steps of: - collecting data in the form of further responses from an entity via a questionnaire including questions derived from said above-described method of evaluation on predetermined aspects of the entity's sense of self or culture, said aspects including at least one of values, purposes, and/or inclusive focus related to said entity, wherein said questions requires the entity to select, prioritise and/or submit one or more said aspects; - storing said collected data on an electronic storage device; - assigning a numerical equivalence to the further responses from a range of predetermined increments; and 11 IPONZ 2 7 FEB 2008 - performing validity calculations on the numerical equivalence of the responses obtained to determine if the average responses between two different questions assessing the same aspect of the entity's Identity Rating differ outside predetermined limits.

According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention there is provided a method of evaluation substantially as described above, wherein said method further includes the step of automatically creating a report that provides an entity with details of any change in its Identity Rating over a predetermined time period. Thus, an entity may be made aware of changes, or lack of change in its sense of self or culture, thus 10 facilitating remedial action if needed.

The present invention enables administrators of said method of evaluation to provide a business that is using the method with a quantification of the financial benefit that the business is obtaining from its culture, through the additional step of correlating the results of the calculations of the method with a database that connects performance 15 advantages to culture strength, thus providing scope for the estimated yield of the business's culture to be accurately calculated; additionally allowing for the provision of a diagnosis as to which business management techniques will be of most benefit in regards to enhancing the state of the business's culture and thereby improving its performance prospects.

According to another aspect of the present invention there is provided a method determining mutual alignment between entities by assessing the degree to which the aspects of the Identity Rating of the two entities are aligned (henceforth Alignment Rating), said Alignment Rating method including the steps of: - performing calculations on the data collected from the method and thereby producing scores that reflect the degree of fit of the sense of self/culture of the two entities; - storing said scores on an electronic storage device; and 12 IPONZ 27 FEB 2008 - providing said scores to one or both of the entities.

According to another preferred embodiment, the Alignment Rating method further includes administering a further questionnaire with questions derived from the content of questions of the Identity Rating of one of the entities in order to more precisely calculate 5 the degree to which respondents are aligned with the Identity Rating of that entity (henceforth Culture-Fit).

According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method of determining alignment (henceforth Feedback Rating) between an entity's own self-perception and feedback from one or more other respondent entities, said method 10 including the steps of: - administering a questionnaire to obtain responses from said other entities to provide feedback on the entity, said questionnaire including questions on predetermined aspects of the entity's sense of self or culture, said aspects including at least one of values, purposes, and/or inclusive focus related to said entity, wherein said questions requires said other respondent entities to select, prioritise and/or submit one or more said aspects, - assigning a numerical equivalence to the further responses from a range of predetermined increments, which predetermined increments are pre-generated and stored on an electronic storage device; and - collating all the feedback responses and calculating the degree of fit between the respondent entities' perception of the entity's aspects and the entity's own self-perception Preferably, said method further includes the step of: - categorizing said feedback responses according to the nature of the relationships 25 between said other entities and the entity. 13 IPONZ 27 FEB 2008 According to another aspect, the present invention provides a method of producing a publicly available Integrity Rating, calculated from the response feedback obtained from said Feedback Rating method to determine the degree to which an entity's behaviour towards other respondent entities matches the entity's self-perception, said method 5 including the steps of: - storing the feedback responses for an entity on an electronic storage device; - manipulating the stored feedback responses by ranking them according to the Integrity Ratings of said respondent entities; performing calculations on said ranked feedback responses obtained from respondent entities with an Integrity Ratings in the upper quartile to determine the degree of correspondence between the entity's perceived by the respondent entities and the entity's self-perception - and publicising the calculation results as the Integrity Rating for the entity.

Preferably, the back-end calculations are implemented through a computer program IS written in a basic language so as to allow the questionnaire and results to be easily converted for any platform, including making the questionnaire and/or results available over the Internet for any standard platform. Currently available computing means enable such a computer program to provide near-instant computation of the calculations involved, thereby enabling the evolutionary algorithm (the method by which the lists of 20 purposes and values are updated from survey to survey according to which ones have previously been selected most often) as described above to be applied from one questionnaire to the next, which would not be possible using a non-programmatic method of implementing the invention.

Thus it can be seen the present invention provides several powerful tools for individuals, 25 organizations and businesses based on an entity's Identity Rating. Prior art Identity Ratings tend to be based on psychological or behavioural characteristics (e.g. the Myers-Brigg scale). In contrast, the present invention's Identity Rating are 14 IPONZ 27 FEB 2008 based on at least one of (though preferably more, or all of) three key aspects: the entity's purpose, values and inclusive focus. As discussed above, the inclusive focus of an entity is measured according to the extent to which the entity focuses on one or more of five measures of success: self-preservation, self-image, intra-group relationships, extra-5 group relationships, and relationship to their wider environment. For example, organizations focused on building their reputation are strongly focused on their self-image, while organizations focused on contributing to and meeting the needs of society are focused on their wider environment. Research by the inventors (and other research such as that in Built to Last1, 'Beyond Built to Last'2, and Corporate Culture and 10 Performance3 has established that purpose, values, and inclusive focus are the key factors in predicting the success of organizations.

In contrast to the prior art (including other purpose-and-value-based methods), the Identity Rating of the present invention is unique, and more accurate at describing and predicting the success of a group or individual due to an approach based on the 15 recognition that entities function as whole systems. Thus, the criterion by which to measure the strength of the entity's purpose, values, and inclusive focus is the degree of alignment of purpose, values, and focus between the parts of the entity (e.g. the alignment between employees in an organization or various aspects of an individual's life such as career, learning and personal relationships).

More specifically, it has been determined by the inventors the degree of alignment is inversely proportional to the area under a power-law graph of the form f(x) ~ x~a, where f(x) is an aspect of an entity's Identity Profile Rating, including values and/or purposes , 'x' is the number of entities sharing that aspect, and a is a constant coefficient of alignment which increases with increasing alignment. Thus, a steeper graph bounding a 25 reduced area indicates greater alignment, e.g. when organizations become more strongly aligned around shared values, the exponent of the equation increases, and the graph becomes steeper (shown in the graphs in Figures 1 and 2), since there are a few core values, with each other value guiding only a few people. The graph in Figure 1 shows a power-law graph of form f(x) ~ x"01 with small a, whereas the graph in Figure 2 30 shows a: power-law graph of form f(x) ~ x~™ with large a.

IPONZ 27 FEB 2008 Research by Carlson and Doyle4 shows that as complex systems become more optimised, the power-law relationship generated gives rise to equations with an increasing coefficient of alignment a, in a directly analogous manner to the findings that strengthening an entity's alignment around its purpose, values, and inclusive focus 5 improves its efficiency and success.

Thus, according to a further aspect, the present invention provides a method of calculating the degree of alignment between different entities and aspects of an entity's sense of self or culture, said aspects including values and/or purposes, said method including the step of calculating the area bounded by a power-law graph of the form f(x) 10 ~ x"a, where f(x) is an aspect of an entity's sense of self or culture, including values and/or purposes, 'x' is the number of entities sharing that aspect, and a is a constant, wherein said alignment is inversely proportional to the calculated area.

Described is a method of calculating the degree of alignment between different entities and aspects of an entity's sense of self or culture, said aspects including values and/or 15 purposes, said method including the step of calculating the area bounded by a power-law graph of the form f(x) ~ x"a, where f(x) is an aspect of an entity's sense of self or culture, 16 IPONZ 27 FEB 2008 including values and/or purposes, 'x' is the number of entities sharing that aspect, and a is a constant, wherein said alignment is inversely proportional to the calculated area.

In a further inventive distinction over the prior art, it has been found that the 5 applicability of a power-law graph arises because the efficiency of an entity's actions depends not on the percentage of its component parts that share a common purpose, values, and/or inclusive focus (as a mechanistic model would suggest) but on the percentage of interactions between its component parts where the parts share the same purpose, values, and inclusive focus (an interaction-based model). In other 10 words, shared purpose, values, and inclusive focus increase alignment, reduce personal friction between entities and improve communication, thereby enhancing the strength and effectiveness of the whole system.

Existing methods of calculating the strength of an entity's purpose, values, or inclusive focus fail to take this into account. Considering an example where 60% of 15 an organization's employees questioned state they are guided by a given purpose or value, this is directly interpreted in prior art methods as indicating a 60% agreement rating for the given value/purpose. In contrast, considering the issue from the perspective of the interactions occurring, it can be seen that only 60% x 60% = 36% of the interactions are between entities sharing the same given value or purpose. A 20 maximum of another 40% x 40% = 16% of interactions might be purpose/values-aligned, if the 40% minority of employees all share a different common value/purpose. Thus, the prior art estimation method overestimates the strength of alignment within the organization by between 8 - 24%.

The present invention thus utilises the analogous link between the area under a 25 power graph (as described above) evident in numerous physical systems and a measure of an interaction-based model for assessing alignment between entities. The algorithm utilised to approximate the area under the graph works by calculating 17 the proportion of effective interactions. Calculating the strength of an entity's purpose, values, and inclusive focus according to an interaction-based model is not evident in known methods and again distinguishes the present invention over the prior art.

The degree of alignment by individual entities within an organisational entity derived 5 from effective interactions is calculated for each relevant value or purpose pertaining to the organisational entity Considering an assessment of an organisational entity's key values, each value selected by an individual entity is weighted by the total number of values selected by that individual entity in the assessment. Hence, a person selecting four values splits their 10 vote 4 ways, with % of a vote for each value.

For each value x', px is the percentage of people who selected that value, while p2x is the percentage of weighted votes the value received.

The sum over all values, of the product of p2x and px is thus calculated, i.e.

Xx P2x ■ Px- If an individual entity is guided by value x, in one area, and px of the other areas of their life are also guided by value x, then their actions are aligned with p2x of their life. Therefore, the total score across all values is Zx p2,x. px.

Therefore, the strength of the entity's alignment around its values = Ex p2,x. px An equivalent calculation applies in the case of the entity's purpose, i.e., for each 20 purpose y, where py is the percentage of entities who selected that purpose, and p2y is the percentage of weighted votes the purpose received, then the strength of the entity's alignment around its purposes = Zy P2,y • Py Therefore, in a further aspect, the present invention provides a method of assessing an individual entity's degree of alignment with an organizational entity's values wherein 25 each value selected by an individual entity is stored on an electronic storage medium and manipulated by weighting it by the total number of values selected by that individual entity in the assessment, said method including the step of - calculating Zx P2,x-Px, where for each value x, px is the percentage of individual entities who selected that 30 value, while p2x is the percentage of weighted votes the value received.

In a yet further aspect, the present invention provides a method of assessing an individual entity's degree of alignment with an organizational entity's purposes wherein each purpose selected by an individual entity is stored on an electronic storage medium 35 and manipulated by weighting it by the total number of purposes selected by that individual entity in the assessment, said method including the step of - calculating Zy P2,y • Py, where for each value y, py is the percentage of individual entities who selected that purpose, while p2y is the percentage of weighted votes the purpose received. 18 IPONZ 27 FEB 2008 Individual entities function as whole systems, and function best when they are aligned around their purposes, values, and inclusive focuses. However, individual entities may also interact to form new systems in which each entity is a component part, e.g., two people beginning a relationship together, or two companies entering 5 into partnership and so forth.

As the relationship created between any two entities is itself a whole system, we can conclude that the success of this system - the success of the relationship - largely depends on the degree to which the two (or more) individual entities involved are aligned with each other. Two entities can have different individual purposes yet share 10 a purpose for their relationship. Therefore, what matters as far as purpose and values are concerned is the similarity of alignment between the two entities - the degree to which the each entity is aligned around its respective purpose and values. For the entities' inclusive focuses, the similarity between the focuses of the two entities can be more directly measured according to the interaction-based model 15 outlined above.

There is no current standardised method for calculating the similarity between two entities based on their Identity Rating, while the existing non-standardised methods suffer from the inability to accurately measure the strength of the alignment of an , entity's purpose, values, and inclusive focus for reasons discussed above. The 20 present invention is capable of accurate matches between entities, according to whole-systems principles, and allowing for multiple near-instantaneous match calculations. This provides clear commercial benefits, particularly with human resources issues such as recruitment. Potential candidates would benefit from assessing whether they are likely to fit in with the culture of various companies before 25 becoming embroiled in a fruitless application, while equally, companies would benefit in terms of reduced recruitment costs and improved retention rates from recruiting staff with common purposes and values. 19 According to a further aspect, the present invention includes a system including a processor, data storage means, a user interface and display, said processor being capable of operating software programmed with any one of said methods and performing any associated calculations required, said data storage means being 5 capable of storing data collected and calculated by said methods, said user interface being capable of receiving responses inputs from an entity.

It will be readily apparent to one skilled in the art that the implementation of such a system may take many forms without departing from the scope of the invention, utilising numerous applicable existing technologies and as such the invention is not 10 limited to any one particular form.

Further aspects and advantages of the present invention will become apparent from the ensuing description, which is given by way of example only.

Discussion In the case of businesses, since the presence of a strong purpose-and-values-driven 15 culture is correlated with strong financial performance in S&P 500 firms, the ability to quantify and track the strength of their culture can provide businesses with an advantage in enhancing their competitive position. The calculation of the Identity Rating as described herein has the advantage of producing results that concord with the interaction-based model of cultural performance as described above, and thereby 20 provide more accurate quantitative measures of these aspects of a business's culture than previous methods have achievable. This increased accuracy allows specific recommendations to be given to businesses, increasing the potential that the measures they implement will indeed enhance their culture and thereby improve their performance. For example, a business with strong values but a weak purpose will 25 want to implement different measures than a business with weak values but a strong purpose.

In addition, the invention provides a means to quantify the effect on the business's culture of any measures the business may introduce from time to time, by examining the variations in the business's ratings during the period in which the measure was introduced. More generally, estimation of the value a business is gaining from its 5 culture is made possible through the correlation of survey results with known performance advantages.

An additional use of the Identity Rating is that may result in a competitive advantage for a business in enhancing its ability to communicate its integrity to external stakeholder groups and the public in general. A high Integrity Rating in conjunction 10 with a high Identity Rating may be rewarded through the choices of ethical consumers to purchase goods or services from that business rather than another. The standardized nature of the Identity Rating provides a clear basis for the public to make comparative decisions. A high Identity Rating and Integrity Rating may also signal an individual or organisation with significantly less risk associated with the 15 provision of finance or insurance services to them by third parties. Thus banks, insurance, investment and other firms may favour individuals and organisations that display these characteristics.

In addition, the Alignment Rating and Culture-Fit aspects of the invention provides means by which businesses can accurately screen potential recruits according to the 20 degree to which they are aligned with the business's culture. This reduces a business's human resources costs by selecting out applicants that are not aligned before they apply, thereby resulting in fewer applications being processed, and a reduced rate of employee turnover as candidates that are aligned are more likely to find the organisation a suitable place to work. Recruiting personnel who are already 25 aligned with the culture of the business also helps the business to maintain its Identity Rating and, by inference, its level of performance. It should be noted that the method is one that avoids the danger of applicants selecting responses in order to create a good impression, since their responses are compared to non-published but 21 important values and values categories, and they therefore cannot respond merely with "the answers the company wants to hear".

Furthermore, the relationship-matching aspect provides potential to assess the benefit to the business of developing a relationship with one supplier or partner over 5 another, by assessing the degree to which the purpose and values of the two businesses are aligned and thereby determining the expected efficiency of the potential relationship.

The feedback aspect of the invention provides a means for a business to assess its success in communicating its purpose and values to external stakeholder groups.

In the case of other organizations, the present invention provides commensurate benefits.

In the case of individual entities, the present invention allows an individual to develop a clearer and stronger sense of self, thereby living more effectively in line with his or her purpose and values. The relationship matching aspect enhances an individual's 15 ability to find rewarding work, and successful and satisfying relationships in general. The feedback aspect of the invention provides useful information to the individual about the extent to which he or she is realizing his or her intentions, a low Feedback Rating coupled with a high Identity Rating being a sign that the individual is not living fully in line with his or her self-perception.

It will be appreciated that all reports mentioned could be provided in a variety of forms, electronic or otherwise, and delivery methods, both on-line and off-line.

It will further be appreciated that the electronic use of an algorithm to determine the content of the questions allows the list of purposes and values available for selection to be revised within seconds of a questionnaire being completed. This enables the 25 list of purposes and values to reflect the ongoing preferences of an organization or business and thereby overcome one of the difficulties in the use of questionnaires as 22 a method of assessing the culture of an organization; i.e., their inability to adapt swiftly to the on-going evolution of the purpose and values in the firm. The use of an algorithm delivered electronically for the evolutionary question process makes it possible to create each new version of the questionnaire swiftly and remotely. This is 5 particularly important in the case of large companies, where hundreds of employees may be completing the questionnaire each day.

Equally, the above-discussed method of evolving which purposes and/or values are listed in successive questionnaires is unbiased by any declared purpose and/or values of the organization or business entity (if any), thereby encouraging the 10 selection of genuine choices rather than the selection of "what my boss would want me to choose". Implementing the questionnaire anonymously with administration by an outside agency further assists in this regard.

It will further be appreciated that this algorithm in particular, and the questionnaire process in general, serve as an autopoietic process, strengthening employees' 15 alignment around shared values by providing a means through which the employees become aware of the values that are currently prevalent within their business's culture. Similarly, an individual using the invention will tend to have his or her sense of self strengthened by the autopoietic nature of the tool. As noted in the background art, it is through such processes that systems maintain themselves, and therefore the 20 application of the invention can be expected to have a positive effect on the business's culture or the individual's sense of self through these autopoietic processes. Conventional questionnaires, due to their lack of an evolutionary element and results page reflective of the current state of the culture, do not sufficiently provide autopoietic processes to the degree that the present invention does. 25 Brief Description of Drawings 23 Further aspects of the present invention will become apparent from the following description, which is given by way of example only and with reference to the accompanying drawings in which: Figure 1 shows a power-law graph of form f(x) ~ x-a with small a 5 Figure 2 shows a power-law graph of form f(x) ~ x-a with large a Figure 3 Shows an Identity Rating breakdown; Figure 4 Shows an Match Rating breakdown; Figure 5 shows a flow chart according to one embodiment of the present invention applied as a business tool in relation to the administration of the 10 questionnaire for a company; Figure 6 shows a flow chart of algorithms according to a further embodiment of the present invention applied in order to create the questions for the purpose and values questions, and Figure 7 shows a flow chart of the sequence according to a further embodiment of 15 the present invention applied as a business tool in relation to its function as a screening tool.

Figure 8 shows a schematic block diagram of one possible system for implementing the methods of the invention on a computer system.

Best Modes for Carrying out the Invention 20 The present invention may be applied in several formats according to the purpose for which it is being applied. These include: A. Identity Rating B. Alignment Rating C. Feedback Rating and Integrity Rating 25 D. Culture-Fit and Business Check The description of these tools is presented through the following examples: 1. Content of questions and coding of responses 2. Calculations on data 24 IPONZ 2 7 FEB 2008 3. Comparison 4. Examples . Notes It should be noted that the present invention can be applied in several ways. In a 5 preferred embodiment, application of the invention includes the 'interactional' method of calculating strength of shared values or purposes, and that the questioning sequence involves an algorithmic process in order to update the lists of purposes and values. Two preferred embodiments for carrying out the invention are described herein.

First Mode for Carrying Out the Invention 1. Content of questions and coding of responses Identity Rating, Alignment Rating, Feedback Rating, Integrity Rating A questioning sequence for these tools may be as follows. The answers are coded on a numerical scale where shown.

Question 1 Question 1 cycles between the following three forms, so that if questionnaire n contains 1a, questionnaire n+1 will contain 1b, questionnaire n+2 will contain 1c before cycling back to 1a, and so forth: Question 1: Either 1a: How often do you feel able to 'be yourself [insert]? Employees Company at work Employees Non-Commercial at work Feedback Commercial in your dealings with our organisation Feedback Non- Commercial in your dealings with our organisation Basic Personal in the way you live your life Personal Feedback in your dealings with [Insert Entity] Work Life Area when working Finance Life Area when handling your finances Relationship Life Area in your intimate relationships Play Life Area when at play Learning Life Area when you spend time studying and learning new things Health Life Area when looking after yourself Contribution Life Area when you feel you are contributing to a better world Recognition Life Area as you receive status and recognition Selectable responses to question 1a Numerical coding Never = 1 Seldom = 2 26 Some of the time = 3 Most of the time = 4 All of the time = 5 Or 1b: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?: [insert] Employees Company "Working for this organisation, we all share a common purpose and set of values." Employees Non- Commercial "Working for this organisation, we all share a common purpose and set of values." Feedback Commercial "The people of this organisation share a common purpose and set of values" Feedback Non- Commercial "The people of this organisation share a common purpose and set of values" Basic Personal "All areas of my life are driven by a common purpose and set of values." Personal Feedback "All areas of [Insert Entity]'s life are driven by a common purpose and set of values." Work Life Area "All areas of my life are driven by a common purpose and set of values." 27 Finance Life Area "All areas of my life are driven by a common purpose and set of values." Relationship Life Area "All areas of my life are driven by a common purpose and set of values." Play Life Area "All areas of my life are driven by a common purpose and set of values." Learning Life Area "All areas of my life are driven by a common purpose and set of values." Health Life Area "All areas of my life are driven by a common purpose and set of values." Contribution Life Area "All areas of my life are driven by a common purpose and set of values." Recognition Life Area "All areas of my life are driven by a common purpose and set of values." Selectable responses to question 1b Numerical coding Strongly Disagree = 1 Disagree = 2 Neutral = 3 Agree = 4 Strongly Agree = 5 28 Or 1c: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: [insert] Employees Company "We as an organisation are living up to our purpose and values." Employees Non-Commercial "We as an organisation are living up to our purpose and values." Feedback Commercial "The people of this organisation are living up to their purpose and values." Feedback Non-Commercial "The people of this organisation are living up to their purpose and values." Basic Personal "In all areas of my life I am living to a common purpose and set of values." Personal Feedback "In all areas of life [Insert Entity] is living to a common purpose and set of values." Work Life Area "In all areas of my life I am living to a common purpose and set of values." Finance Life Area "In all areas of my life I am living to a common purpose and set of values." Relationship Life Area "In all areas of my life I am living uto a common purpose and set of values." Play Life Area "In all areas of my life I am living to a common purpose and set of values." 29 Learning Life Area "In all areas of my life I am living to a common purpose and set of values." Health Life Area "In all areas of my life I am living to a common purpose and set of values." Contribution Life Area "In all areas of my life I am living to a common purpose and set of values." Recognition Life Area "In all areas of my life I am living to a common purpose and set of values." Selectable responses to question 1c Numerical coding Strongly Disagree = 1 Disagree = 2 Neutral = 3 Agree = 4 Strongly Agree = 5 Question 2 Two part question, - 2a, and 2b Question 2a Table 1.

Employees Company What do you feel is the organisation's purpose? Please select one of the following options: [Commercial Purpose List] Employees Non-Commercial What do you feel is the organisation's purpose? Please select one of the following options: [Non-com Purpose List] Stakeholder Commercial — Stakeholder Non-Commercial — Basic Personal What do you feel is your purpose, your reason for being on Earth at this time? Please select one of the following options: [Personal Purpose List] Personal Feedback — Work Life Area What do you feel is the purpose of your work? Please select one of the following options: [Personal Purpose List] Finance Life Area What do you feel is the purpose of you having money? Please select one of the following options: [Personal Purpose List] Relationship Life Area What do you feel is the purpose of your intimate relationships? Please select one of the following options: [Personal Purpose List] Play Life Area What do you feel is the purpose of your leisure time? Please select one of the following options: [Personal Purpose List] Learning Life Area What do you feel is the purpose of your learning and study? Please select one of the following options: 31 [Personal Purpose List] Health Life Area What do you feel is the purpose of caring for yourself and looking after your health? Please select one of the following options: Contribution Life Area What do you feel is the purpose behind the efforts you make to contribute to a better world? Please select one of the following options: [Personal Purpose List] Recognition Life Area What do you feel is the purpose of your quest for status and recognition? Please select one of the following options: [Personal Purpose List] 2b Table 2.

Employees Company If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the organisation's purpose, in the text box below: Employees Non-Commercial If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the organisation's purpose, in the text box below: Stakeholder Commercial — Stakeholder Non-Commercial ~ Basic Personal If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes your purpose, your reason for being on Earth at this time in the 32 text box below: Personal Feedback — Work Life Area If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the purpose of your work in the text box below: Finance Life Area If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the purpose of you having money in the text box below: Relationship Life Area If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the purpose of your intimate relationships in the text box below: Play Life Area If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the purpose of your leisure time in the text box below: Learning Life Area If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the purpose of your learning and study in the text box below: Health Life Area If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the purpose of caring for yourself and your health in the text box below: Contribution Life Area If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the 33 purpose behind the efforts you make to contribute to a better world in the text box below: Recognition Life Area If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the purpose of your quest for status and recognition in the text box below: For this question, the respondent is given a list of up to 12 possible answers to choose from, which for the first questionnaire are selected at random from a master list of purposes. For later questionnaires, the most-selected purposes are displayed. The purposes will be displayed in a random order. The respondent may only select 5 one purpose from the list.

The selected purpose is compared to a master list of purposes stored in a database and the unique numerical code associated with that purpose is stored as the response to the question. (The codes are unique in general; however, purposes regarded as identical may be stored as synonyms. For example, To satisfy our 10 customers' and To please our customers' may share the same code. The master list is screened for synonyms regularly.) If the respondent entity feels none of the options match what they believe the purpose to be, they may submit an unlisted purpose by typing that purpose into an "Other" box. A purpose entered in under 'Other' is then added to the list for the next 15 respondent. If it does not appear on the master list, it is added, and a unique numerical code assigned.

When a purpose is typed into the 'Other' box and added to the list, another purpose must be removed from the list in order for there to remain a fixed number of purposes on the list. Therefore number of votes divided by number of appearances is 20 calculated, for each purpose, which produces a number between 0 and 1 in each 34 case. The purpose with the lowest score is removed. If two purposes have an equally low score, the one with most appearances is removed.

Question 3 Question 3 cycles between the following two versions, so that if questionnaire n contains 3a, questionnaire n+1 will contain 3b: Either 3a: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Employees Company "I find working for the organisation inspiring." Employees Non-Commercial "I find working for the organisation inspiring." Stakeholder Commercial "I find the organisation inspiring." Stakeholder Non-Commercial "I find the organisation inspiring." Basic Personal "I find the way I live my life inspiring." Personal Feedback "I feel [Insert Entity] finds life inspiring." Work Life Area "I find my work inspiring." Finance Life Area "I find my relationship to money inspiring." Relationship Life Area "I find my intimate relationships inspiring." Play Life Area "I find the way I play and have fun inspiring." Learning Life Area "I find the way I learn inspiring." Health Life Area "1 find the way 1 look after myself inspiring." Contribution Life Area "1 find the contribution 1 make to a better world inspiring." Recognition Life Area "1 find the status and recognition 1 receive inspiring." Selectable responses to question 3a Numerical coding Strongly Disagree = 1 Disagree = 2 Neutral = 3 Agree = 4 Strongly Agree = 5 Or 3b: Employees Company To what extent does the purpose of the organisation actively guide your decisions at work? Employees Non-com To what extent does the purpose of the organisation actively guide your decisions at work? Stakeholder Com The stated purpose of the organisation is [insert purpose]. To what extent does this purpose drive the organisation? Stakeholder Non-com The stated purpose of the organisation is [insert purpose]. To what extent does this purpose drive the organisation? Basic Personal To what extent does your purpose actively guide you in 36 your life? Personal Feedback [Insert EntityJ's purpose is [insert purpose]. To what extent do you believe this purpose drives X's life? Work Life Area To what extent does your purpose actively guide your work? Finance Life Area To what extent does your purpose actively guide the way you handle money? Relationship Life Area To what extent does your purpose actively guide your intimate relationships? Play Life Area To what extent does your purpose actively guide the way you play and have fun? Learning Life Area To what extent does your purpose actively guide your desire to learn? Health Life Area To what extent does your purpose actively guide the way you look after yourself? Contribution Life Area To what extent does your purpose actively guide the contribution you make to a better world? Recognition Life Area To what extent does your purpose actively guide your efforts to achieve status and recognition? Selectable responses to question 3b Numerical coding Never = 1 37 Seldom = 2 Some of the time = 3 Most of the time = 4 All of the time = 5 Question 4 Question 4 cycles between the following two versions, so that if questionnaire n contains 4a, questionnaire n+1 will contain 4b: 4a: Employees Company To what extent do you believe the organisation as a whole is driven by its purpose? Employees Non- Commercial To what extent do you believe the organisation as a whole is driven by its purpose? Stakeholder Commercial — Stakeholder Non- Commercial — Basic Personal — Personal Feedback — Work Life Area — Finance Life Area — Relationship Life Area — Play Life Area — 38 Learning Life Area — Health Life Area — Contribution Life Area — Recognition Life Area — Selectable responses to question 4a Numerical coding Never = 1 Seldom = 2 Some of the time = 3 Most of the time = 4 All of the time = 5 4b: Employees Company To what extent do you believe the organisation as a whole is committed to the value of X1? Employees Non-com To what extent do you believe the organisation as a whole is committed to the value of X1? Stakeholder Com -- Stakeholder Non-com — Basic Personal — 39 Personal Feedback — Work Life Area — Finance Life Area — Relationship Life Area — Play Life Area — Learning Life Area — Health Life Area — Contribution Life Area — Recognition Life Area — Selectable responses to question 4b Numerical coding Never = 1 Seldom = 2 Some of the time = 3 Most of the time = 4 All of the time = 5 Value 'X1' is selected at random from the five values on the list for which the previous employees taking the survey have voted for most frequently. 40 Question 5a Table 1 Employees Company Please select the values that guide you in your work: Employees Non- Commercial Please select the values that guide you in your work: Stakeholder Commercial — Stakeholder Non-Commercial — Basic Personal Please select the values that guide you in your life: Personal Feedback — Work Life Area Please select the values that guide your work: Finance Life Area Please select the values that guide the way you handle your finances: Relationship Life Area Please select the values that guide your intimate relationships: Play Life Area Please select the values that guide the way you play and have fun: Learning Life Area Please select the values that guide your desire to learn: Health Life Area Please select the values that guide the way you look after yourself: Contribution Life Area Please select the values that guide the contribution 41 you make to a better world: Recognition Life Area Please select the values that guide your efforts to achieve status and recognition: values are then listed as described below.

Table 2 Employees Company You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide your decisions at work: Employees Non- Commercial You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide your decisions at work: Stakeholder Commercial — Stakeholder Non-Commercial — Basic Personal You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide you in your life: Personal Feedback — Work Life Area You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide your work: Finance Life Area You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide the way you handle your finances: Relationship Life Area You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide your intimate relationships: 42 Play Life Area You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide the way you play and have fun: Learning Life Area You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide your desire to learn: Health Life Area You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide the way you look after myself: Contribution Life Area You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide the contribution you make to a better world: Recognition Life Area You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide your efforts to achieve status and recognition: The respondent is given a list of up to 20 possible answers to choose from. These answers will be displayed in a random order. The respondent may select up to 6 values.

The values are compared with a master list of values stored as a database and the 5 unique numerical codes associated with the values chosen are stored as the response to the question. (The codes are unique in general; however, values regarded as identical may be stored as synonyms. For example, 'Customer focus' and 'Consumer focus' may share the same code. The master list will be screened for synonyms on a regular basis.) If the respondent regards as important certain values that do not appear in the list, he or she may type those values into an "Other" box. The value or values entered are then added to the list for the next respondent. They are also added to the master list, if they do not already appear on it, and unique numerical codes are assigned. 43 After each questionnaire is completed, the number of votes divided by the number of appearances is calculated for each value, which produces a number between 0 and 1 in each case. The twenty values with the highest scores appear on the list for the next questionnaire. If two values have an equally high score, the one with most appearances is retained.

Question 5b - for feedback only This question is repeated four times, as for the Culture Fit Tool Part B.

Employees Company — Employees Non-Commercial ~ Stakeholder Commercial Please select the value you believe most strongly guides the organisation in its activities: Stakeholder Non-Commercial Please select the value you believe most strongly guides the organisation in its activities: Basic Personal Personal Feedback Please select the value you believe most strongly guides [Insert Entity]'s life: Work Life Area — Finance Life Area — Relationship Life Area — Play Life Area — Learning Life Area — 44 Health Life Area — Contribution Life Area — Recognition Life Area — Allowable responses: (four values listed in random order) - Winning attitude (hub) - A passion for innovation (non-hub) - Rewarding work (non-hub) Personal development (non-hub) Question 6 Employees Company To what extent does the value of X2 guide you in your work? Employees Non-Commercial To what extent does the value of X2 guide you in your work? Stakeholder Commercial To what extent do you believe the value of X2 guides the organisation's activities? Stakeholder Non-Commercial To what extent do you believe the value of X2 guides the organisation's activities? Basic Personal To what extent do the values you have selected guide you in your life? Personal Feedback To what extent do you believe the value of X2 guides [Insert Entityj's life? 45 Work Life Area To what extent do you believe the value of X2 guides your work? Finance Life Area To what extent do you believe the value of X2 guides the way you handle your finances? Relationship Life Area To what extent do you believe the value of X2 guides your intimate relationships? Play Life Area To what extent do you believe the value of X2 guides the way you play and have fun? Learning Life Area To what extent do you believe the value of X2 guides your desire to learn? Health Life Area To what extent do you believe the value of X2 guides the way you look after yourself? Contribution Life Area To what extent do you believe the value of X2 guides the contribution you make to a better world? Recognition Life Area To what extent do you believe the value of X2 guides your desire for status and recognition? Selectable responses to question 6 Numerical coding Never = 1 Seldom = 2 Some of the time = 3 46 Most of the time = 4 All of the time = 5 Value X2 is selected at random from the five values on the master list that have received the highest percentage of votes from previous surveys.

Question 7 Employees Company To what extent do you feel the organisation actively focuses on X37 Employees Non-Commercial To what extent do you feel the organisation actively focuses on X3? Stakeholder Commercial To what extent do you feel the organisation actively focuses on X37 Stakeholder Non-Commercial To what extent do you feel the organisation actively focuses on X3? Basic Personal — Personal Feedback — Work Life Area — Finance Life Area — Relationship Life Area — Play Life Area — Learning Life Area — 47 Health Life Area — Contribution Life Area — Recognition Life Area — Selectable responses to question 7 Numerical coding Never = 1 Seldom = 2 Some of the time = 3 Most of the time = 4 All of the time = 5 X3 cycles through the following list, so that if questionnaire n contains X3(1), questionnaire n+1 will contain X3(2), questionnaire n+2 will contain X3(3) and so forth: For commercial: serving the needs of its owners/shareholders = X3(1) building and enhancing its reputation = X3(2) serving the needs of its employees = X3(3) serving the needs of its customers = X3(4) creating a better world through its products and services = X3(5) 48 For non-commercial: Meeting its financial needs = X3(1) building and enhancing its reputation= X3(2) serving the needs of its members and/or employees = X3(3) serving the needs of its 'customers' = X3(4) creating a better world through its activities = X3(5) Question 8 (for employee only) Employees Company To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement? Employees Non- Commercial To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement? Stakeholder Commercial — Stakeholder Non- Commercial — Basic Personal — Personal Feedback — Work Life Area — Finance Life Area — Relationship Life Area — Play Life Area — 49 Learning Life Area — Health Life Area — Contribution Life Area -- Recognition Life Area — Selectable responses to question 8 Numerical coding Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent \ = 5 X4 cycles through the following list so that if questionnaire n contains X4(1), questionnaire n+1 will contain X4(2) and so forth: your financial reward package = X4(1) your organisation's reputation = X4(2) the success of your work colleagues = X4(3) exceeding customer expectations = X4(4) the contribution your work makes to society = X4(5) Question 9 - Personal only. Answer all for Standard and Feedback, cycle for 10 Enhanced. 50 Employees Company — Employees Non- Commercial — Stakeholder Commercial — Stakeholder Non- Commercial — Basic Personal To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement? [asked for all options, i.e. 5 questions] Personal Feedback To what extent do you feel X4 is important to [Insert EntityJ's sense of achievement? [asked for all options, i.e. 5 questions] Work Life Area To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement at work? Finance Life Area To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement when handling your finances? Relationship Life Area To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement in your intimate relationships? Play Life Area To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement when at play? Learning Life Area To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement when you spend time studying and learning new things? Health Life Area To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement when looking after yourself? 51 Contribution Life Area To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement when you do things that contribute to a better world? Recognition Life Area To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement as you receive status and recognition? Selectable responses to question 9 Numerical coding Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent = 5 X5 cycles through the following list so that if questionnaire n contains X4(1), questionnaire n+1 will contain X4(2)\ financial success = X5(1) status and reputation = X5(2) the success of those around you = X5(3) serving others = X5(4) contributing to society = X5(5) Question 10 52 Employees Company Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by the organisation that you feel is contributing to its success: Employees Non-Commercial Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by the organisation that you feel is contributing to its success: Stakeholder Commercial Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by the organisation that you feel is contributing to its success: Stakeholder Non-Commercial Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by the organisation that you feel is contributing to its success: Basic Personal Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in your life that you feel is contributing to your success.

Personal Feedback Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by [Insert Entity] that you feel is contributing to [Insert Entity]'s success.

Work Life Area Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in your work that you feel is contributing to your success.

Finance Life Area Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in the way you handle your finances that you feel is contributing to your success. 53 Relationship Life Area Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in your intimate relationships that you feel is contributing to your success.

Play Life Area Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in the way you play and have fun that you feel is contributing to your success.

Learning Life Area Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in your desire to learn that you feel is contributing to your success.

Health Life Area Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in the way you look after yourself that you feel is contributing to your success.

Contribution Life Area Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in the contribution you make to a better world that you feel is contributing to your success.

Recognition Life Area Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in status and recognition you receive that you feel is contributing to your success.

Question 11 Employees Company Describe one improvement you would like to see in the organisation.

Employees Non-com Describe one improvement you would like to see in the organisation. 54 Stakeholder Com Describe one improvement you would like to see in the organisation.

Stakeholder Non-com Describe one improvement you would like to see in the organisation.

Basic Personal Describe one improvement you would like to make in the way you live your life Personal Feedback Describe one improvement you would like to see in how X lives life Work Life Area Describe one improvement you would like to make in your work.

Finance Life Area Describe one improvement you would like to make in the way you handle your finances.

Relationship Life Area Describe one improvement you would like to make in your intimate relationships.

Play Life Area Describe one improvement you would like to make in the way you play and have fun.

Learning Life Area Describe one improvement you would like to make in your desire to learn.

Health Life Area Describe one improvement you would like to make in the way you look after yourself.

Contribution Life Area Describe one improvement you would like to make in the \ contribution you make to a better world. 55 Recognition Life Area Describe one improvement you would like to make in your efforts to achieve status and recognition you receive.

Culture Fit and Business Check Culture Fit questions are as follows: Part A A1. To what extent is your financial reward package important to your sense of achievement? Selectable responses to question A1 Numerical coding Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent = 5 A2. To what extent is your company's reputation important to your sense of achievement? Selectable responses to question A2 Numerical coding Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 56 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent = 5 A3. To what extent is the success of your work colleagues important to your sense of achievement? Selectable responses to question A3 Numerical coding Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent = 5 A4. To what extent is exceeding customer expectations important to your sense of achievement? Selectable responses to question A4 Numerical coding Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent = 5 A5. To what extent is the contribution your work makes to society important to your sense of achievement? 57 Selectable responses to question A5 Numerical coding Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent = 5 Part B There are four questions in Part B, all of the form: Which of the following values guides you most in your work? Four values are listed in each question: one from group B1, and three from group B2. 5 Group B1 is the four most-selected values from the company's Identity Rating. Group B2 is twelve random values.

Parte There are four questions in Part B, all of the form: Which of the following values guides you most in your work? Three values are listed in each question: one from group C1, and two from group C2. Group C1 is the fifth to eighth most-selected values from the company's Identity Rating. Group C2 is eight random values. 2. Calculations on Data 58 Numbers in brackets refer to calculations listed in full detail below the tables All Profile Calculations Organisation (commercial/ non-com) Personal Basic Personal Enhanced Stakeholder Profile entity Rating The Identity Rating is the average of: (1) Purpose Alignment (2) Values Alignment (3) Sense of Self Rating Commitment Rating The Identity Rating is the average of: (1) Purpose Alignment (2) Values Alignment (4) Sense of Self Rating Commitment Rating Purpose Alignment Calculated from Question 2a -see (1) Calculated from Question 2a -see (1) Values Alignment Calculated from Question 5a -see (2) Calculated from Question 5a -see (2) Calculated from Identity Ratings data - see (5) Values Categories Pattern Calculated from Question 5a -see(23) Calculated from Question 5a -see (23) Calculated from Question 5a -see (23) Calculated from Identity Ratings data - see (24) Sense of Self Rating Calculated from Question 7 -see (3) Calculated from Question 9 -see (4) Calculated from Question 9 -see (4) Calculated from Identity Ratings data - see (6) Sense of Self Focus Calculated from Question 7 -see(3b) Calculated from Question 9 -see (4b) Calculated from Question 9 -see (4b) Calculated from Identity Ratings data - see (6b) 59 Commitment The Commitment Rating is the average of: Purpose Commitment Values Commitment Sense of Self Commitment The Commitment Rating is the average of: Purpose Commitment Values Commitment The Commitment Rating is the average of: Purpose Commitment Values Commitment The Commitment Rating is the average of: Purpose Commitment Values Commitment Purpose Commitment Calculated from Question 3 -see (7) Calculated from Question 3 -see (7) Calculated from Question 3 -see (7) Calculated from Identity Ratings data - see (8) Values Commitment Calculated from Question 6 -see (9) Calculated from Question 6 -see (9) Calculated from Question 6 -see (9) Calculated from Identity Ratings data - see (10) Sense of Self Commitment Calculated from Question 8 -see (11) Overall Data Check Calculated from Question 1 -see(12) Calculated from Question 1 -see (12) Calculated from Question 1 -see (12) Calculated from Question 1 -see (12) Purpose Data Check Calculated from Questions 3 and 4a - see (13) Values Data Check Calculated from Questions 4b and 6 - see (14) Company Division/Life Area Ratings Calculated from data - see (28) Calculated from data - see (28) Matching Calculations Alignment Rating: Organisation (com/non-com) Alignment Rating: Alignment Rating: Personal Enhanced Personal Basic Stakeholder Profile 60 Alignment Rating The Alignment Rating is the average of: Commitment Fit Values Categories Fit Sense of Self Fit The Alignment Rating is the average of: Commitment Fit Values Categories Fit The Alignment Rating is the average of: Commitment Fit Values Categories Fit Sense of Self Fit Other ratings that go into the Feedback Report are: Purpose Commitment Fit Values Commitment Fit Specific Values Fit Sense of Self Focus Fit Sense of Self Fit Other ratings that go into the Feedback Report are: Purpose Commitment Fit Values Commitment Fit Other ratings that go into the Feedback Report are: Purpose Commitment Fit Values Commitment Fit Specific Values Fit Specific Levels of Self Fit Specific Values Fit Sense of Self Focus Fit Specific Levels of Self Fit Sense of Self Focus Fit Specific Levels of Self Fit Purpose Integrity Values Integrity Sense of Self Integrity Specific Value Integrity Specific Level of Self Integrity Values Commitment Feedback Sense of Self Commitment Feedback Specific Level of Self — — — 61 Commitment Feedback Error Check — ~ — Commitment Fit The Commitment Fit is the average of: Purpose Commitment Fit Values Commitment Fit The Commitment Fit is the average of: Purpose Commitment Fit Values Commitment Fit The Commitment Fit is the average of: Purpose Commitment Fit Values Commitment Fit Purpose Commitment Fit Calculated from Identity Ratings-see (19) Calculated from Identity Ratings -see (19) Calculated from Identity Ratings - see (19) Values Commitment Fit Calculated from Identity Ratings - see (20) Calculated from Identity Ratings -see (20) Calculated from Identity Ratings - see (20) Values Categories Fit Calculated from Identity Ratings - see (21) Calculated from Identity Ratings -see (21) Calculated from Identity Ratings - see (21) Sense of Self Focus Fit Calculated from Identity Ratings - see (22) Calculated from Identity Ratings -see (22) Calculated from Identity Ratings - see (22) Specific Values Fit Calculated from Identity Ratings-see (21b) Calculated from Identity Ratings -see (21b) Calculated from Identity Ratings - see (21b) Key Sense of Self Fit Calculated from Identity Ratings - see (22b) Calculated from Identity Ratings -see (22b) Calculated from Identity Ratings - see (22b) Specific Levels of Self Fit Calculated from Identity Ratings - see (22c) Calculated from Identity Ratings -see (22c) Calculated from Identity Ratings - see (22c) Feedback Calcula tions Feedback Alignment Integrity Rating Rating 62 Alignment Rating The Feedback Alignment Rating is the average of: Purpose Integrity Values Integrity Sense of Self Integrity Based on feedback from selected users The Integrity Rating is the average of: Purpose Integrity Values Integrity Sense of Self Integrity Based on feedback from users with Alignment Ratings (for all feedback they have received) in the upper quartile of the system (or above some other threshold) Purpose Integrity Calculated from Question 3 - see (15) Calculated from Question 3 -see (15) Values Integrity Calculated from Question 5b - see (16) Calculated from Question 5b -see (16) Sense of Self Integrity Calculated from Question 7 (commercial/non-com) or 9 (personal) - see (17) Calculated from Question 7 (commercial/non-com) or 9 (personal) - see (17) Specific Value Integrity See (16b) See (16b) Specific Level of Self Integrity See (17b) See (17b) Values Commitment Feedback See (16c) See (16c) Sense of Self Commitment Feedback See (17c) See (17c) Specific Level of Self Commitment Feedback See (17d) See (17d) Error Check Calculated from Question 1 - see (18) Calculated from Question 1 -see (18) Commitment Fit Purpose Commitment Fit — — Values Commitment Fit — — Values Categories Fit — — 63 Sense of Self Focus Fit ~~ Specific Values Fit " — Key Sense of Self Fit — ~ Specific Levels of Self Fit — — Culture Fit/Business Check calculations Culture Fit Business Check Sense of Self Result Calculated from Culture-Fit Part A - see (25) Calculated from Culture-Fit Part A - see (25) Values Result Calculated from Culture-Fit Parts B and C - see (26) Calculated from Culture-Fit Parts B and C - see (26) Overall Result Calculated from Sense of Self Result and Values Result - see (27) Calculated from Sense of Self Result and Values Result - see (27) Description of Calculations (1) Purpose Alignment The Purpose Alignment rating is calculated from question 2a: Calculate the percentage of votes for each purpose = pi, p2, P3 ■■■■ Now, pi x Pi is the number of interactions where both employees share the purpose of Pi- Therefore, (p, x pi) is the total percentage of aligned interactions. □i (Pi x Pi) is the Purpose Alignment rating. (2) Values Alignment The Values Alignment rating is calculated from question 5a: 64 1 Each response to question 5 is weighted by the total number of values that the person chose. (In effect, a person choosing four values splits his vote 4 ways, with V* of a vote for each value.) 2 For each value 'x', the percentage of areas where x was chosen px is calculated. Also calculated is p2,x> the percentage of weighted votes value 'x' received. 3 ~Zx.p2.x-Px is then calculated. If a person is guided by value x in one area, and Px of the other areas of his life are also guided by value x, then his actions are aligned with p2x of his life. Therefore, the total score across all values is Zx.P2,x-Px Z x Pzx-Px is the Values Rating. (3) Sense of Self Rating: Commercial and Non-Commercial The Sense of Self rating is calculated from question 7: For each option, X4(1) to X4(5), calculate the percentage score for that option. 15 The Sense of Self Rating is the average of the percentage scores for X4( 1) to X4(5). (3b) Sense of Self Focus The Sense of Self Focus corresponds to the category in question 7 that has the highest percentage score.

This data is used in the Identity Report but not in the Identity Rating calculation. 20 (4) Sense of Self Rating: Personal The Sense of Self Rating is calculated from question 7: For each option, X4(1) to X4(5), calculate the percentage score for that option. 65 The Sense of Self Rating is the average of the percentage scores for X4(1) to X4(5). (4b) Sense of Self Focus The Sense of Self Focus corresponds to the category in question 9 that has the highest percentage score.

This data may be reported to the user as part of an Identity Report but is not used in calculating the Identity Rating. (5) Values Alignment: Stakeholder Profile For each value x, calculate px, the average percentage of times stakeholders have selected the value (for a Standard Personal Profile user, each value will score either 10 0% not selected or 100% for selected once, surveyed once).

For Example: Adam has an Enhanced Profile and has selected the value 'Honesty' 30 times in 40 surveys = 75% Ben has a Standard Profile and has selected the value 'Honesty' = 100% Carol has an Enhanced Profile and has selected the value 'Honesty two times in four surveys = 50% Total for Honesty = 225% / 3 entities = 75% Ix.p,*.px is the Values Alignment Rating for the Stakeholder Profile. (6) Sense of Self Rating: Stakeholder Profile The Sense of Self rating is calculated from the individual stakeholders' Sense of Self rating. 66 For each category, the individuals' average responses (as stored for their Identity Ratings) are averaged.

The overall Sense of Self rating is the average of the scores for each category. (6b) Sense of Self Focus The Sense of Self Focus corresponds to the category that has the highest percentage score.

This data is used in the Identity Report but not in the Identity Rating calculation. (7) Purpose Commitment The Purpose Commitment rating is calculated from question 3: It is the average of the responses to questions 3a and 3b, expressed as a percentage. (8) Purpose Commitment: Stakeholder Profile The Purpose Commitment is calculated from the individual stakeholders' Purpose Commitments.

It is the average of those scores. (9) Values Commitment The Values Commitment rating is calculated from question 6: It is the average of the responses to question 6, expressed as a percentage. (10) Values Commitment: Stakeholder Profile The Values Commitment is calculated is the average of the individual stakeholders' Values Commitments. 67 (11) Sense of Self Commitment: Commercial and Non-Commercial The Sense of Self rating is calculated from question 8: For each option, X4(1) to X4(5), calculate the percentage score for that option. The Sense of Self rating is the average of the percentage scores for X4(1) to X4(5). 5 (12) Overall Integrity Check The Overall Integrity Check is calculated from question 1.

The results for question 1 are converted into a percentage, G.

If (G - Commitment rating) < -10%, the integrity check is not OK.

If (G - Commitment rating) >= -10%, the integrity check is OK.

This data is used in the Identity Report but not in the Identity Rating calculation. (13) Purpose Integrity Check The Purpose Integrity Check is calculated from question 3 and question 4a. The results for question 4a are converted into a percentage, P.

If (P - Purpose Commitment) < -20%, the integrity check is not OK.

If (P - Purpose Commitment) >= -20%, the integrity check is OK.

This data is used in the Identity Report but not in the Identity Rating calculation. (14) Values Integrity Check The Values Integrity Check is calculated from question 6 and question 4b. The results for question 4b are converted into a percentage, V. 68 If (V- Values Commitment) < -20%, the integrity check is not OK.

If (V- Values Commitment) >= -20%, the integrity check is OK.

This data is used in the Identity Report but not in the Identity Rating calculation. (15) Purpose Integrity The Purpose Integrity rating is calculated from question 3: It is the average of the feedback responses to questions 3, expressed as a percentage. (16) Values Integrity The Values Integrity rating is calculated from Question 5b: Each value listed has a value-score associated with it, corresponding to the percentage of time it was selected for entity X's Identity Rating.

Values Integrity score for a single feedback survey equals the sum of the scores for the four values selected divided by the sum of the scores for the four 'hub' or 'core' values which most-selected values for that entity.

The overall Values Integrity score is the average of the Individual Values Integrity scores for all the feedbacks selected. (16b) Specific Value Integrity For each hub value, its Specific Value Integrity score is calculated as the number of votes for that value divided by the number of feedback surveys.

This data is used in the Feedback Alignment Report but not in the Feedback Alignment/Integrity Rating calculation. (16c) Values Commitment Feedback 69 The Values Commitment rating is calculated from question 6: It is the average of the feedback responses to question 6, expressed as a percentage.

This data is used for the Feedback Alignment Report but not in the Feedback 5 Alignment/Integrity Rating calculation. (17) Sense of Self Integrity From X's Identity Rating we know pXi, pXii, pXiii, pXiv and pXv, the stated focus on the different levels of self /' - v. This is from Question 7 for commercial and noncommercial organisations and from question 9 for personal users.

The results from questions 7 or 9 from the feedback survey are converted into percentages for each level of self. Call these pYi, pYii, pYiii, pYiv, pYv.

The Sense of Self Integrity rating for a particular feedback is then: 100% - ((| pV7 — pXi \ + \pYii- pXii \ + | pYiii - pXiii | + | pYiv- pXiv | + | pYv - pXv | )/5) The average of these ratings across all feedbacks is the overall Sense of Self Integrity rating. (17b) Specific Level of Self Integrity For each level of self /', its Specific Level of Self Integrity score is calculated as the average | pYi - pXi | across all feedback surveys.

This data is used in the Feedback Alignment Report but not in the Feedback Alignment/Integrity Rating calculation. (17c) Sense of Self Commitment Feedback 70 For each level of self /, the average percentage score across all the feedback responses is calculated. The Sense of Self Commitment rating is the average of the percentages for all levels of self /'.

This data is used in the Feedback Alignment Report but not in the Feedback 5 Alignment/Integrity Rating calculation. (17d) Specific Level of Self Commitment For each level of self /', its Specific Level of Self Commitment score is calculated as the average | pYi - pXi | across all feedbacks.

This data is used in the Feedback Alignment Report but not in the Feedback 1 o Alignment/Integrity Rating calculation. (18) Error Check The responses to question 1 are converted into percentages and averaged; call this score 'E'.

Error Check = Feedback Alignment/Integrity Rating - E.

This provides a basic integrity check, to check the Feedback Alignment/Integrity Ratings are realistic. (19) Purpose Commitment Fit The Purpose Commitment Fit is calculated from the Purpose Commitment Ratings for entities A and B, i.e. PC(A) and PC(B).

Purpose Commitment Fit = 100% -1 PC (A) - PC(B) | (20) Values Commitment Fit 71 The Values Commitment Fit is calculated from the Values Commitment Ratings for entities A and B, i.e. VC(A) and VC(B).

Values Commitment Fit = 100% -1 VC(A) - VC(B) | (21) Values Categories Fit The Values Categories Fit is calculated from the Values Categories Patterns of entities A and B as follows: For entity A, the percentage of times each value has been selected is summed within each category (Operational, Relational, Inspirational). E.g. 40% control + 50% quality = 90% operational, 30% love + 90% understanding = 120% relational, 60% passion + 10 30% learning = 90% inspirational.

These totals are then divided by their sum to obtain percentage scores, i.e. 90% / (90%+120%+90%) = 30% operational and similarly, 40% relational, and 30% inspirational.

The percentage scores for the categories Operational, Relational, Inspirational 15 categories for entity A are O(A), R(A) and 1(A) respectively. These scores represent the Values Categories Pattern for A.

The same calculation is done for Entity B.

The Values Categories Fit is then: Values Categories Fit = 100% - ((\0(A) - O(B)| + |R(A) - R(B)\ + 11(A) - 1(B)|) / 3) (21b) Specific Values Fit The Hub Values of A and B are compared. Where A and B have both chosen the same value, both selecting it over 50% of the time, this is reported in the Alignment Report. 72 (22) Sense of Self Focus Fit Entity A and Entity B both have Sense of Self (Stakeholder Focus) commitment ratings for each level of self I to v (stakeholder group). Call these pAi, pAii, pAiii, pAiv, pAv for Entity A and pBi, pBii, pBiii, pBiv, pBv for Entity B.

The Sense of Self Focus Fit is then = 100% - ((| pAi - pBi \ + \ pAii - pBii | + | pAiii -pBiii | + | pAiv - pBiv | + | pAv - pBv |) / 5 ). (22b) Specific Levels of Self Fit The Specific Level of Self Fit for a particular level of self / is: 100%- \pAi-pBi\ Specific Levels of Self Fit are used in the Alignment Report but not in the Alignment calculation. (22c) Key Sense of Self Fit For Entity A, we take its Sense of Self Focus. Call this level of self focus Ai. We similarly take Bii, B's focus. We then use the Level of Self Commitment ratings to 15 calculate the Sense of Self Focus Fit as follows: Sense of Self Focus Fit = 100% - ((| pAi - pBi | + | pAii - pBii \) 12) The Sense of Self Focus Fit is used in the Alignment Report but not in the Alignment calculation. (23) Values Categories Pattern The Values Categories Pattern is calculated from Question 5a as follows: The percentage of times each value has been selected is summed within each category (Operational, Relational, Inspirational). E.g. 40% control + 50% quality = 73 90% operational, 30% love + 90% understanding = 120% relational, 60% passion + 30% learning = 90% inspirational.

These totals are then divided by their sum to obtain percentage scores, i.e. 90% / (90%+120%+90%) = 30% operational and similarly, 40% relational, and 30% 5 inspirational.

The percentage scores for the categories Operational, Relational, Inspirational categories for entity A are O(A), R(A) and 1(A) respectively. These scores represent the Values Categories Pattern for A. (24) Values Categories Pattern: Stakeholder Profile The Values Categories Pattern is calculated from the individuals' Values Categories Patterns. Each category score is the average of the individuals' scores for that category. (25) Sense of Self Result The scores from the entity's answers to Part A are compared with the company's 15 own Sense of Self Rating scores. Let pAi be the surveyed entity's score for category /' and pBi be the company's own score. The Sense of Self Result is then = 100% - ((| pAi - pBi | + | pAii - pBii | + | pAiii - pBiii \ + | pAiv - pBiv | + | pAv- pBv |) / 5 ). For the purposes of the Culture-Fit/Business Check the following thresholds are used: Over 90% = very high 80% to 90% = high 70% to 80% = medium 60% to 70% = low Under 60% = very low 74 (26) Values Result The values listed in each question for Parts B and C have scores associated with them. The score for a value is the percentage of votes it has received in the entity's Identity Rating. The scores for the values selected by the entity completing the 5 survey are totalled and divided by the maximum possible score (if the highest-scoring value was selected in each question) to produce a percentage that is the Values Result.

Over 80% = very high 60% to 80% = high 10 40% to 60% = medium 20% to 40% = low Under 20% = very low (27) Overall Result The Values Categories Pattern is calculated from the Sense of Self Result and the 15 Values Result. The Overall Result ranges from Very High to Very Low as above, and is the average of the two levels, rounded down. For example, an individual scoring High for Sense of Self and Low for Values will score Medium for the Overall Result; an individual scoring Very High for Sense of Self and Low for Values will score Medium for the Overall Result.

The company can choose the Pass/Fail setting according to its needs, for example a company with few vacancies may choose a High setting while a company in a tight job market may choose Medium. (28) Life Area/Company Division Ratings 75 Each Life Area for the Personal Enhanced profile or different divisions within a commercial or non-commercial organisation can have their own Identity Rating calculated. The categories and calculations are the same as for the overall Identity Rating but use only the data for that area/division.

The main Identity Rating results can also be calculated as a composite from the calculations for the sub-profiles (instead of from the raw data): To combine the surveys the scores for the individual values and purposes in Questions 2, 5 and 6) are combined. E.g. If five South Island staff choose A and two North Island staff choose A, then the Values Alignment is done once with A=7 rather 10 than combined from the Values Alignment scores that the separate surveys will produce.

The other calculations do combine simply (i.e. add them and divide by two - though because numbers of responses may differ, the actual calculation may be: Score[GroupX+GroupY] = (Score[GroupA] x NumberofSurveys[GroupA]) + (ScorefGroupB] x NumberofSurveys[GroupB]) I (NumberofSurveys[GroupA] + NumberofSurveys[GroupB]) Notes on Calculations The overall Stakeholder Alignment rating is calculated using all feedbacks received. 20 A rating is produced once per five or more feedbacks received.

Feedback can be subdivided into specific groups if the user defines which categories those giving feedback fall into. For example, a feedback rating for 'friends' or 'customers' can be produced once for every five or more 'friend'/'customer' feedbacks received. 76 The feedbacks used to calculate the Integrity Rating are those for which the respondents' own Integrity Ratings are in the upper quartile of Integrity Ratings for the entire system i.e. all people/organizations using the system.

No Integrity Rating is calculated until at least 5 qualified responses or individuals (for 5 companies it may be at least ten, or 10% of the number of employees (gauged by number of email addresses loaded into the survey). Maximum number of feedbacks for an individual Integrity Rating = 20 The Stakeholder Alignment Rating and Integrity Rating are calculated similarly, as described below. The Stakeholder Alignment Reports are phrased differently for 10 commercial, non-commercial and personal users. 3. Comparison The unique method of calculating the Values Rating (so that the number of core values does not matter) allows for comparison of this rating, as well as the other ratings, between entities. This enables the 'matching' calculations to be performed.

Another important form of comparison may be historical comparison of the ratings for the entity in question. This will for example allow managers of a business to correlate their culture-enhancement initiatives with changes in their Identity Rating. 4. Examples The examples that follow are for a commercial organization.

The following example shows how the calculation of the Purpose Rating works in practice, for a business.

Example 1: 77 The most-selected purpose, 'To Serve Customers', which in this very simple example received 2 votes, gained 8 weighted votes. As the weighted votes totalled 16, the Purpose Rating is 8/16, or 50%. 1 2 3 4 To serve customers 3 2 8 To create tools 3 1 3 To make money 1 1 1 To change the world 4 1 4 Total 16 50% The following examples show how the calculation of the Values Rating works in 5 practice, for a business.

Example 2(a): One Core Value In this example, 200 employees voted, and each one voted for a single value. Quality is the core value of this company. The standard method of calculation at present would give a result of 80% for the alignment of this company, but our more accurate, 10 interactions-based model for assessing the culture gives a result of just under 65%.

Value No. Votes No. of Weighted Votes Percentage of People (Px) Percentage of Weighted Votes (p2y) 100-px P2.X ( 1 00- Py) Quality 160 160 80 80 1600 Efficiency 12 12 6 6 94 564 Teamwork 95 475 Trust 8 8 4 4 96 384 Growth 6 6 3 3 97 291 Beauty 4 4 2 2 98 196 A = 3510 Values Rating = 64.90% 78 Example 2(b): Several Core Values In this example, 200 employees voted. Quality, customer service, integrity and innovation are the core values of this company. The people who voted for quality, also voted for customer service, integrity, and innovation. The others all voted for a 5 single value. The calculations show that the overall score remains the same, although there are now four core values rather than one. The consistency is due to the weighting of votes, as described above. This is another advantage of the present tool over previous methods of collecting data on organizational culture.

Value No. Votes No. of Weighted Votes Percentage of People (Px) Percentage of Weighted Votes (p2jf) 100- px Pzxdoo- px) Quality 160 40 80 400 Customer Service 160 40 80 400 Integrity 160 40 80 400 Innovation 160 40 80 400 Efficiency 12 12 6 6 94 564 Teamwork 95 475 Trust 8 8 4 4 96 384 Growth 6 6 3 3 97 291 Beauty 4 4 2 2 98 196 A = 3510 Values Rating = 64.90% Example 2(c): Improvement - Becoming More Aligned In this example, the core value of quality has become a stronger part of the company's culture, and more people now identify it as guiding them in their work. This results in a higher Values Rating than in 1(a).

Value No. votes No. of Weighted Votes Percentage of People (px) Percentage of Weighted Votes (p2.x) 100- px P2,x (100-px) Quality 180 180 90 90 900 Efficiency 6 6 3 3 97 291 Teamwork 2.5 2.5 97.5 243.75 Trust 4 4 2 2 98 196 Growth 3 3 1.5 1.5 98.5 147.75 Beauty 2 2 1 1 99 99 79 A = 1877.5 Cultural Alignment = 81.23% Example 3: Perfection In this example, everyone in the company holds the same values, truth and quality.

Value No. Votes No. of Weighted Votes Percentage of People CP*) Percentage of Weighted Votes (p2.x) 100- px Pzx(100- Px) Truth 200 100 100 50 0 0 Quality 200 100 100 50 0 0 Values Rating = 100% Example 4: Chaos In this example, everyone is guided by different values, all of which are unique.

Value No. Votes No. of Weighted Votes Percentage of People (Px) Percentage of Weighted Votes (p2x) 100-px p2 x(100- px) Other 1 (200 times) 1 (200 times) 0.5 (200 times) 0.5 (200 times) 99.5 (200 times) 49.75(200 times) A = 9950 Values Rating = 0.50% The theoretical lowest possible score is when each individual votes for a unique value. In this case, since the number of employees is 100lpx, the calculation becomes: A = (100/px)(px)(100-px) = 10000 -100 px Therefore, Values Rating = (10000->4)/10000 =px/100 =p*% A company with 10,000 employees, for example, could score a minimum of 0.01% if every single employee was guided by a unique value. This 0.01% baseline is a result of the finite number of employees, since a company with infinite employees could score a minimum of 0%. The error is insignificant except for very small companies (under 100 employees). In these cases, it can be compensated for, by changing the 15 values rating calculation to: Values Rating = (10000-^4)/(10000- px). 80 Example 5(a): Hiring Aligned Employees In this example, the company described in example 2(c) hires 20 new employees (increasing its workforce by 10%), and screens them in order to ensure that they are guided by the value of quality. All the employees complete the questionnaire and the 5 company's results are now as shown below: Value No. votes No. of Weighted Votes Percentage of People (Px) Percentage of Weighted Votes (p2 x) 100-Px P2x (100-Px) Quality 200 200 90.91 90.91 9.09] 826.44 Efficiency 6 6 2.73 2.73 97.27 265.28 Teamwork 2.27 2.27 97.73 222.1 Trust 4 4 1.82 1.82 98.18 178.51 Growth 3 3 1.36 1.36 98.64 134.5 Beauty 2 2 0.91 0.91 99.09 90.08 A = 1716.94 Values Rating = 82.83% The hiring of aligned employees has had a small positive effect on the Values Rating (and therefore, also on the Identity Rating).

Example 5(b): Hiring Non-Aligned Employees No. of Percentage Percentage Weighted of People of Weighted P2,x (100- Value No. votes Votes (Px) Votes (p2.x) 100- px Px) Quality 182 182 82.73 82.73 17.27 1428.93 Efficiency 8 8 3.64 3.64 96.36 350.41 Teamwork 7 7 3.18 3.18 96.82 308.06 Trust 7 7 3.18 3.18 96.82 308.06 Growth 2.27 2.27 97.73 222.11 Beauty 4 4 1.82 1.82 98.18 178.51 Service 3 3 1.36 1.36 98.64 134.5 Innovation 3 3 1.36 1.36 98.64 134.5 Passion 1 1 0.45 0.45 99.55 45.25 A = 3110.33 Values Rating = 68.90% In this case, the company increased its workforce by 20 employees (10%), but did not screen the new recruits, resulting in a rise in the variety of values operating within the culture, and a consequent decrease in the Values Rating. 81 Second Mode for Carrying Out the Invention The present invention may be applied in several formats according to the purpose for which it is being applied. These include: A. Identity Rating B. Match Rating (formerly Alignment Rating) C. Feedback Rating D. Culture-Fit and Business Check The description of these tools is presented through the following examples: 1. Content of questions and coding of responses 10 2. Calculations on data 3. Comparison 4. Examples . Notes 1. Content of Questions and coding of responses Identity Rating, Match Rating (Alignment Rating), Feedback Rating A questioning sequence for these tools may be as follows. The answers are coded on a numerical scale where shown.

Question 1a Table 1.

Employees Company What do you feel is the organisation's purpose? Please select one of the following options: 82 Employees Non-com What do you feel is the organisation's purpose? Please select one of the following options: Stakeholder Com — Stakeholder Non-com — Basic Personal What do you feel is your purpose, your reason for being on Earth at this time? Please select one of the following options: Personal Feedback — Work Life Area What do you feel is the purpose of your work? Please select one of the following options: Finance Life Area What do you feel is the purpose of you having money? Please select one of the following options: Relationship Life Area What do you feel is the purpose of your intimate relationships? Please select one of the following options: Play Life Area What do you feel is the purpose of your leisure time? Please select one of the following options: Learning Life Area What do you feel is the purpose of your learning and study? Please select one of the following options: Health Life Area What do you feel is the purpose of caring for yourself and looking after your health? Please select one of the following options: Table 2.

Employees Company If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the organisation's purpose, in the text box below: Employees Non-com If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the organisation's purpose, in the text box below: Stakeholder Com — Stakeholder Non-com — Basic Personal If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes your purpose, your reason for being on Earth at this time in the text box below: Personal Feedback — Work Life Area If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the purpose of your work in the text box below: Finance Life Area If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the purpose of you having money in the text box below: Relationship Life Area If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the purpose of your intimate relationships in the text box below: Play Life Area If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the purpose of your leisure time in the text box below: Learning Life Area If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the purpose of your learning and study in the text box below: 83 If you do not agree with any of these options, please specify an alternative, which you feel better describes the purpose of caring for yourself and your health in the text box below: For this question, the respondent is given a list of up to 12 possible answers to choose from, which for the first questionnaire are selected at random from a master list of purposes. For later questionnaires, the most-selected purposes are displayed. The purposes will be displayed in a random order. The respondent may only select 5 one purpose from the list.

The purpose is compared to a master list of purposes stored in a database and the unique numerical code associated with that purpose is stored as the response to the question. (The codes are unique in general; however, purposes regarded as identical may be stored as synonyms. For example, To satisfy our customers' and To please 10 our customers' may share the same code. The master list is screened for synonyms regularly.) If the respondent feels none of the options match what he or she believes the purpose to be, he or she may type that purpose into an "Other" box. A purpose entered in under 'Other' is then added to the list for the next respondent. If it does not 15 appear on the master list, it is added, and a unique numerical code assigned.

When a purpose is typed into the 'Other' box and added to the list, another purpose must be removed from the list in order for there to remain only 12 purposes on the list. Therefore the number of votes divided by number of appearances is calculated, for each purpose, which produces a number between 0 and 1 in each case. The 20 purpose with the lowest score is removed. If two purposes have an equally low score, the one with most appearances is removed.

Question 1b - Personal Basic Questionnaire only: (PC) Purpose Coherence is the answer to the question, "To what extent does your purpose guide you in all areas of your life?" converted into a percentage. 84 Question 2a Table 1 Employees Company Please select the values that guide you in your work: Employees Non-com Please select the values that guide you in your work: Stakeholder Com — Stakeholder Non-com — Basic Personal Please select the values that guide you in your life: Personal Feedback — Work Life Area Please select the values that guide your work: Finance Life Area Please select the values that guide the way you handle your finances: Relationship Life Area Please select the values that guide your intimate relationships: Play Life Area Please select the values that guide the way you play and have fun: Learning Life Area Please select the values that guide your desire to learn: Health Life Area Please select the values that guide the way you look after yourself: Table 2 Employees Company You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide your decisions at work: Employees Non-com You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide your decisions at work: Stakeholder Com — Stakeholder Non-com — Basic Personal You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide you in your life: Personal Feedback ~ Work Life Area You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide your work: Finance Life Area You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide the way you handle your finances: Relationship Life Area You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide your intimate relationships: Play Life Area You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide the way you play and have fun: Learning Life Area You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide your desire to learn: Health Life Area You may also provide up to two additional values that you believe guide the way you look after myself: The respondent is given a list of up to 20 possible answers to choose from. These answers will be displayed in a random order. The respondent may select up to 6 values. 85 The values are compared with a master list of values stored as a database and the unique numerical codes associated with the values chosen are stored as the response to the question. (The codes are unique in general; however, values regarded as identical may be stored as synonyms. For example, 'Customer focus' 5 and 'Consumer focus' may share the same code. The master list will be screened for synonyms on a regular basis.) If the respondent regards as important certain values that do not appear in the list, he or she may type those values into an "Other" box. The value or values entered are then added to the list for the next respondent. They are also added to the master list, 10 if they do not already appear on it, and unique numerical codes are assigned.

After each questionnaire is completed, the number of votes divided by the number of appearances is calculated for each value, which produces a number between 0 and 1 in each case. The twenty values with the highest scores appear on the list for the next questionnaire. If two values have an equally high score, the one with the most 15 appearances is retained.

Question 2b - for feedback only This question is repeated four times.

Employees Company — Employees Non-com — Stakeholder Com Please select the value you believe most strongly guides the organisation in its activities: Stakeholder Non-com Please select the value you believe most strongly guides the organisation in its activities: Basic Personal Personal Feedback Please select the value you believe most strongly guides X's life: Work Life Area — Finance Life Area — Relationship Life Area — Play Life Area — Learning Life Area — Health Life Area — 86 Four values are listed in random order for each question. In each case, exactly one of the values is one of the four highest-scoring values from the organisation's Identity Survey.

Question 2c Personal Basic Only.

Values Coherence is the answer to the question, "To what extent do you feel the values you have chosen guide you in all areas of your life?" - converted into a percentage.

Question 3a - Groups and Organisations Only Employees Company To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement "In this organisation we actively focus on X"? Employees Non-com To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement "In this organisation we actively focus on X"? Feedback Com In your opinion to what extent would the organisation agree or disagree with the following statement "In this organisation we actively focus on X"? Feedback Non-com In your opinion to what extent would the organisation agree or disagree with the following statement "In this organisation we actively focus on X"? Basic Personal — Personal Feedback — Work Life Area — Finance Life Area — Relationship Life Area — Play Life Area — Learning Life Area — Health Life Area — Selectable responses to question 3a Numerical coding Never = 1 Seldom = 2 Some of the time = 3 Most of the time = 4 All of the time = 5 87 X3 cycles through the following list, so that if questionnaire n contains X3(1), questionnaire n+1 will contain X3(2): For commercial: - serving the needs of its owners/shareholders = X3(1) 5 - building and enhancing its reputation = X3(2) - serving the needs of its employees = X3(3) - serving the needs of its customers = X3(4) - creating a better world through its products and services = X3(5) For non-commercial: - Meeting its financial needs =X3(1) - building and enhancing its reputation = X3(2) - serving the needs of its members and/or employees = X3(3) - serving the needs of its 'customers' = X3(4) - creating a better world through its activities = X3(5) Question 3b - Personal Surveys only Life Areas cycle for Enhanced surveys.

Employees Company — Employees Non-com — Stakeholder Com — 88 Stakeholder Non-com — Basic Personal To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement? [asked for all options, i.e. 5 questions] Personal Feedback To what extent do you feel X4 is important to X's sense of achievement? [asked for all options, i.e. 5 questions] Work Life Area To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement at work? Finance Life Area To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement when handling your finances? Relationship Life Area To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement in your intimate relationships? Play Life Area To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement when at play? Learning Life Area To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement when you spend time studying and learning new things? Health Life Area To what extent is X4 important to your sense of achievement when looking after yourself? Selectable responses to question 3b Numerical coding Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 89 To a very large extent = 5 X4 cycles through the following list so that if questionnaire n contains X4(1), questionnaire n+1 will contain X4(2): - being happy - earning the respect of others - creating strong personal relationships - improving the happiness of others - making a contribution to society Question 4 Employees Company Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by the organisation that you feel is contributing to its success: Employees Non-com Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by the organisation that you feel is contributing to its success: Stakeholder Com Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by the organisation that you feel is contributing to its success: Stakeholder Non-com Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by the organisation that you feel is contributing to its success: Basic Personal Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in your life that you feel is contributing to your 90 success.

Personal Feedback Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by X that you feel is contributing to X's success.

Work Life Area Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in your work that you feel is contributing to your success.

Finance Life Area Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in the way you handle your finances that you feel is contributing to your success.

Relationship Life Area Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in your intimate relationships that you feel is contributing to your success.

Play Life Area Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in the way you play and have fun that you feel is contributing to your success.

Learning Life Area Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in your desire to learn that you feel is contributing to your success.

Health Life Area Describe one thing that you admire about the approach taken by you in the way you look after yourself that you feel is contributing to your success.

Question 5 Employees Company Describe one improvement you would like to see in the 91 organisation.

Employees Non-com Describe one improvement you would like to see in the organisation.

Stakeholder Com Describe one improvement you would like to see in the organisation.

Stakeholder Non-com Describe one improvement you would like to see in the organisation.

Basic Personal Describe one improvement you would like to make in the way you live your life Personal Feedback Describe one improvement you would like to see in how X lives life Work Life Area Describe one improvement you would like to make in your work.

Finance Life Area Describe one improvement you would like to make in the way you handle your finances.

Relationship Life Area Describe one improvement you would like to make in your intimate relationships.

Play Life Area Describe one improvement you would like to make in the way you play and have fun.

Learning Life Area Describe one improvement you would like to make in your desire to learn.

Health Life Area Describe one improvement you would like to make in the 92 way you look after yourself.

Question 6a - System Optimisation Questions - Personal Basic Empowerment To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "1 have all 1 need in order to fully live my life"? Freedom To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "1 respond easily to changes in my life"? Maintenance To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "When faced with difficult decisions 1 let my purpose and values guide me"? Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated): Selectable responses to question 6 Numerical coding Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent = 5 Question 7 - Enhanced Personal Survey - Focus Optimisation Questions Those based upon these inserts: - being happy - earning the respect of others - creating strong personal relationships - improving the happiness of others 93 - making a contribution to society Freedom To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "1 am always finding new ways of X"? Reversed To what extent do you believe that following rules is a way of X? To what extent do you seek ideas from others on better ways of X? To what extent does finding new ways of X excite you? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Exploring new ways of X is something 1 do well"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "When it comes to X 1 am motivated, 1 am creative and 1 take initiative"? To what extent do you spend time learning from others about better ways of X? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "1 am willing to hear feedback from others on the way 1 go about X"? Reversed To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "1 rely mainly on what 1 already know when it comes to X"? Reversed To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "When it comes to X not many people know as much as me"? 94 Empowerment To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "It is easy for me to find creative solutions to X"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "At present X is difficult for me due to situations and events beyond my control"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "1 am confident that X is something 1 will always be able to do in any situation"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "When 1 think about X 1 do not feel there is much 1 can do"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Success in X is largely outside my control"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Whatever 1 do X is hard for me at the moment"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "It doesn't matter what 1 do, X is always something others do better than me"? To what extent do you feel the way you live your life demonstrates a full commitment to X? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "1 feel the effort 1 put into X makes a difference"? Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated): 95 Selectable responses to question 7 Numerical coding Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent = 5 Those based on these inserts: - be happy - earn the respect of others - create strong personal relationships - improve the happiness of others - make a contribution to society Maintenance To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "It is not just what I do, but the way I do it that enables me to ${INSERT}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "My purpose and values directly affect my ability to ${INSERT}"? To what extent do you feel living by your values improves your ability to ${INSERT}? Reversed To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In order to ${INSERT} I believe the ends justify the means"? Reversed To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In order to ${INSERT} I sometimes compromise my 96 principles"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "A lot of things can change in the way I seek to ${INSERT}, but my purpose and values seldom change"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "My purpose and values are the 'bottom line' for the decisions I make in order to ${INSERT}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "When faced with difficult decisions about the way to ${INSERT} I let my purpose and values guide me"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I believe the way to ${INSERT} is to hold fast to my purpose and values and at the same time be flexible and adaptable to changes in my life"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "When I want to ${INSERT} I think about what would be good in the long run as well as what gets immediate results"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Living by my purpose and values is continuously opening new ways for me to ${INSERT}"? Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated): Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 97 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent = 5 Question 8 - Enhanced Personal Survey - Life Area Questions - System 5 Optimisation Those based on these inserts: - succeeding in my work - improving my finances - nurturing my intimate relationships 10 - having fun - learning - looking after myself Freedom To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I am always finding new ways of ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "For me ${insert}is mainly about following rules"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I am always getting new ideas from others on better ways of ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Finding new ways of ${insert) excites me"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "It is easy for me to adopt new ways of ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "When it comes to ${insert} I am motivated, I am creative and I take initiative"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Others have a lot to teach me ${insert}? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I am willing to hear feedback from others on the way I approach 98 ${insert}"? Reversed To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "1 rely mainly on what 1 already know when it comes to ${insert}"? Reversed To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "When it comes to ${insert} 1 already know all 1 need to know."? Empowerment To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "1 find it easy to find new ways of ${insert}"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In spite of my best efforts 1 still encounter many obstacles to ${insert}"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "1 find ${insert} is difficult for me at the moment due to situations and events beyond my control"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "1 am confident that ${insert) is something 1 will always be able to do in any situation"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "When it comes to ${insert} 1 realize there is not much 1 can personally do to improve"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Success in ${insert} is something that is largely out of my control"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Whatever 1 do ${insert} is hard for me at the moment"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "It doesn't matter what 1 do, ${insert} is always something others do better than me"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The way 1 live my life demonstrates 1 am fully committed to ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "1 feel the effort 1 put into ${insert} makes a difference"? Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated): Selectable responses to question 8 Numerical coding Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent = 5 99 Those based on these inserts: - succeed in my work - improve my finances - deepen my intimate relationships - have more fun - gain more satisfaction from learning - look after myself well Maintenance To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "It is not just what I do, but the way I do it that enables me to ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The values that enable me to ${insert} seldom change"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "My purpose and values directly affect my ability to ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "A lot of things change in the way I seek to ${insert}, but my purpose and values seldom change"? Reversed To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "It is necessary to compromise my principles in order to ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "My purpose and values are the 'bottom line' for how I ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "My purpose and values seldom change, but everything else can change in order for me to ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "When faced with difficult decisions about the way to ${insert} I let my purpose and values guide me"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I believe the way to ${insert} is to hold fast to my purpose and values and at the same time be flexible and adaptable to changes taking place around me"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "When I want to ${insert} I think about what would be good in the long run as well as what gets immediate results"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "While I hold to my purpose and values, I can also seize 100 new opportunities that enable me to ${insert}"? Empowerment To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I am willing to be bold in my thinking and action in order to ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I often the initiative and this helps me to ${insert}"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Last week I found it hard to ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I have all I need in order to ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Today I am able to ${insert}"? Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated): Selectable responses to question 8 Numerical coding Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent = 5 Question 9 - Focus Optimisation Questions - Groups and Organisations Those based on these inserts: X3 cycles through the following list: For commercial: - creating value for our owners = X3(1) - enhancing our reputation = X3(2) - helping colleagues = X3(3) - serving the needs of customers = X3(4) 10 - working to create a better world = X3(5) For non-commercial: 101 - keeping our organisation viable = X3(1) - enhancing our reputation = X3(2) - helping colleagues = X3(3) - serving the needs of clients = X3(4) - working to create a better world = X3(5) Empowerment Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "At present ${insert} is difficult for me due to situations and events beyond my control"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I am confident that ${insert} is something I will always be able to do in any situation"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "When I think about ways of ${insert} I do not feel there is much I can personally do"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Success in ${insert} is largely out of my control"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Anything that is focused on ${insert} is hard for me at the moment"? Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "It doesn't matter what I do ${insert} is always something others do better than me"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I feel fully committed to ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "We are all focused on ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I feel the effort I put into ${insert} makes a difference"? Maintenance To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The stories we tell about our organisation have a lot to say about how we should go about ${insert}"? Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated): Selectable responses to question 9 Numerical coding Not at all = 1 102 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent = 5 Those based on these inserts: X3 cycles through the following list: For commercial: - create value for our owners = X3(1) - enhance our reputation = X3(2) - help colleagues = X3(3) - serve the needs of customers = X3(4) - work to create a better world = X3(5) For non-commercial: - keep our organisation viable = X3(1) - enhance our reputation = X3(2) - help colleagues = X3(3) - serve the needs of clients = X3(4) - work to create a better world = X3(5) Maintenance To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The way I ${insert} is assessed based on the way I work, not just the results I achieve"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The values that guide me as I ${insert} will not change"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Our culture directly affects the way we ${insert}"? 103 Reversed To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation it does not matter how we ${insert} as long as we get results"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "A lot of things change in the way we ${insert}, but our purpose and values never change"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation we would never compromise our principles even if it helped us to ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Our purpose and core values are the 'bottom line' for us when making decisions and formulating plans about the way we ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation our purpose and values seldom change, but everything else can change as we ${insert}"? At work to what extent are you encouraged to refer to the purpose and core values of the organisation when making difficult decisions about the way we ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation we have an extremely strong culture and at the same time we are able to adapt the way we ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation we focus on how we ${insert} over the long term as well as the short term"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation we are visionary about the way we ${insert} and also superb at the daily 'nuts and bolts' execution"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The people of this organisation are committed to our purpose and values as well as being able to quickly adapt to changes that affect the way we ${insert}"? Freedom To what extent do you feel encouraged to continually improve the way you ${insert}? To what extent do you feel this organisation is open to feedback about the way we ${insert}? To what extent do you feel your ideas are listened to about the way we ${insert}? F Reversed To what extent do you feel that this organisation believes that the way we ${insert} is mostly about following at set of rules? F Reversed To what extent do you hope that problems you face about the way you ${insert} will go away by themselves? To what extent do you feel you get constructive feedback that helps you improve the way you ${insert}? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following 104 statement: "We quickly share news that may impact on the way we ${insert}"? To what extent do you feel willing to receive constructive feedback that helps you improve the way you ${insert}? To what extent do you feel the leaders of this organisation are able to listen to constructive feedback that helps them improve the way we ${insert}? To what extent do you give constructive feedback that enables others ${insert}? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I am always sharing new ways to ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I am always finding new ways we can ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I quickly know when something changes that affects the way I can ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "This organisation responds quickly to new events that impact on the way we ${insert}"? To what extent is it easy for you to approach your leaders and have your ideas listened to about the way we ${insert}? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Sharing ideas and best practise about the way we ${insert} is one of the things this organisation does best"? Reversed To what extent to you feel left in the dark about important changes in the way we ${insert}? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "This organisation clearly and consistently communicates changes to the way we ${insert}"? o what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement "When I ${insert} I am acknowledged and rewarded for the initiatives I take"? o what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "When I ${insert) I am motivated, creative and take initiative"? o what extent do you spend time talking with others about how you can better ${insert}? o what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "When we ${insert} we decide what to do by consensus as much as possible"? d what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "This organisation is always seeking feedback from me as to how we can improve the way we ${insert}"? Empowerment Reverse Score To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The way I ${insert} is difficult at the moment." 105 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "At work I have all I need in order to ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "My job enables me to ${insert}"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "When I ${insert} it is easy for me to find creative solutions"? Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated): Selectable responses to question 9 Numerical coding Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent = 5 Question 10 - System Optimisation Questions - Groups and Organisations Empowerment To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "It is up to me how successful I am at my work"? E To what extent do you feel inspired by your work? E To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I am valued in this organisation"? E To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I believe my work contributes to our ability to fulfill our purpose as an organisation"? E To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "At work I know I can successfully tackle challenges that come each day".

E Reversed Score To what extent does arriving at work make you feel depressed? E To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I have everything I need in order to successfully do my work"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "We are all leaders in this organisation"? To what extent do you feel you are able to take initiative to fulfil the purpose of the organisation? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation we are always trying new things in order to fulfil our purpose".

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: 106 "At work I feel supported to work efficiently and effectively in what I do"? Freedom To what extent do you feel encouraged to continually improve the way you work? To what extent do you actively participate in making your organisation a better place to work? To what extent are the ideas you have are listened to? F Reversed To what extent is your work mostly about just following the rules? F Reversed To what extent do you hope work problems will go away by themselves? To what extent do you get constructive feedback that helps you do your job better? To what extent do you give constructive feedback that helps others do their job better? To what extent are you encouraged to find new ways to do a better job? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I am always finding new ways to improve my work"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I quickly know when something changes that affects me and my work"? To what extent is it easy for you to approach your leaders and have your ideas listened to? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Sharing ideas and best practise is one of the things this organisation does best"? Reversed To what extent to you feel left in the dark about important changes that impact your work? Reversed To what extent do you feel there is an 'us' and 'them' attitude in your organisation? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Our leaders work for the good of the organisation rather than their own personal goals"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The reputation of our organisation depends upon not just what we do, but how we do it"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Our culture fosters individual motivation, initiative and creativity"? To what extent do you spend time talking with others about how you can better achieve the goals of the organisation? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation we work as far as possible by consensus"? 107 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Our leaders act to instil loyalty and good feelings about our organisation"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I feel this organisation really cares about me as an employee and makes effort to ensure I can grow with it, personally and professionally"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "This organisation is always seeking feedback from me about how we can do a better job"? Maintenance To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "My performance is assessed in terms of the way I work, not just the results I achieve"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "I have a strong sense of our organisation's history"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The values that guide me in my work will not change"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Our culture directly affects the way I do my work"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation leadership is not about what you can do for yourself, but what you can do for others"? Reversed To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation the ends justify the means"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "A lot of things change in this organisation, but our purpose and values never change"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation we would never compromise our principles for the short term gain"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation we like to develop our own people instead of bringing experts in from outside"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation our purpose and values seldom change, but everything else can change to achieve our purpose"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation we have a clear vision and sense of direction and encourage each other to experiment and try new things"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation we have an extremely strong culture and at the same time we are able to easily adapt to meet changing needs"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation we invest for the long term as well 108 as expect short-term performance"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation we are visionary about what we want to achieve and superb at the daily 'nuts and bolts' execution"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The people of this organisation are committed to our purpose and values as well as being able to quickly adapt to changing needs"? Maintenance continued.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The leadership of this organisation focus on developing the organisation and its people, rather than on just producing results"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "This organisation clearly and consistently communicates its purpose and core values to employees"? At work to what extent are you encouraged to refer to the purpose and core values of the organisation when making difficult decisions? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Our purpose and core values are the 'bottom line' for us when making decisions and formulating plans"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Here we are interested in creating a great organisation that thrives well into the future"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "At work we all feel part of one team"? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In this organisation we all share the same purpose and values"? Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated): Selectable responses to question 10 Numerical coding Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent = 5 Culture Fit and Business Check Culture Fit and Business Check questions are as follows: Part A A1. To what extent is your financial reward package important to your sense of achievement? A2. To what extent is your company's reputation important to your sense of 5 achievement? A3. To what extent is the success of your work colleagues important to your sense of achievement? A4. To what extent is exceeding customer expectations important to your sense of achievement? A5. To what extent is the contribution your work makes to society important to your sense of achievement? Each question is answered by the respondent and given a numerical rank as follows: Selectable responses to question A1 -A5a Numerical coding Not at all = 1 To a slight extent = 2 To some extent = 3 To a large extent = 4 To a very large extent = 5 Part B There are four questions in Part B, all of the form: Which of the following values guides you most in your work? Four values are listed in each question: one from group B1, and three from group B2. Group B1 is the four most-selected values from the company's Identity Rating. Group B2 is twelve random values. 110 PartC There are four questions in Part B, all of the form: Which of the following values guides you most in your work? Three values are listed in each question: one from group C1, and two from group C2. 5 Group C1 is the fifth to eighth most-selected values from the company's Identity Rating. Group C2 is eight random values. 2. Calculations on Data Section 1: Definitions and Type of Calculations Section 2: Identity Rating and Match Rating Breakdown 10 Section 3: Full calculations Section 4: Question rotation Section 1: Definitions and Type of Calculations IR = Identity Rating = simple average of C and O C = Coherence = simple average of SC and FC 15 O = Optimisation = simple average of SO and FO (only SO for basic personal) SC = System Coherence = simple average of PC and VC FC = Focus Coherence = simple average of FC(1), FC(2), FC(3), FC(4), FC(5) SO = System Optimisation = simple average of E(S), F(S), M(S) FO = Focus Optimisation = simple average of FO(1), FO(2), FO(3), FO(4), FO(5) 20 PC = Purpose Coherence = alignment-style calculation 111 VC = Values Coherence = alignment-style calculation FC(1),... = Focus Coherence (for each Focus Area) = simple average of FD(1) and Fl(1) (for basic personal, only Fl(1)) FO(1) = Focus Optimisation (for each Focus Area) = simple average of E(F1), F(F1), M(F1) FD(1) = Focus Deviation = alignment-style calculation Fl(1) = Focus Importance = simple average of FH(1) question ES = System Empowerment = simple average of ES questions (results scaled) FS = System Freedom = simple average of FS questions (results scaled) MS = System Maintenance = simple average of MS questions (results scaled) EF(1) = Focus Empowerment = simple average of EF(1) questions (results scaled) FF(1) = Focus Freedom = simple average of FF(1) questions (results scaled) MF(1) = Focus Maintenance = simple average of MF(1) questions (results scaled) ESL(1) = System Empowerment in Life Area 1 (for personal users) FSL(1) = System Freedom in Life Area 1 (for personal users) MSL(1) = System Maintenance in Life Area 1 (for personal users) M = Match Result = simple average of FM and SM FM = Focus Match = difference-based calculation SM = System Match = simple average of SOM and SCM 112 FA(1),... = Focus Area score (for each Focus Area) = simple average of FC(1) and SCM = System Coherence Match = difference-based calculation SOM = System Optimisation Match = difference-based calculation Section 2: Identity Rating and Match Rating Breakdown With reference to Figure 3, this is the way the Identity Rating is calculated. However, the data can be represented in multiple ways depending on what hierarchy is chosen. The only data that are not shown in the results are the results for single optimisation questions, and the FC.

Lowest levels represented = PC, VC, FC(1) to FC(5), ESL(1) to ESL(5), FSL(1) to FSL(5), MSL(1) to MSL(5), EF(1) to EF(5), FF(1) to FF(5), MF(1) to MF(5) Figure 4 shows a Match Rating breakdown.

FO(1) IPONZ 27 FEB 2008 113 Section 3: Full Calculations Scaling Algorithm This is applied to the simple response questions where noted below. It is designed to increase the range of reasonably achievable results.

The algorithm is as follows: Take the simple average percentage score for the question ('original score'). Convert 10 this into the final score as follows: 0 - 40% - earn 0.5% final score per 1 % original score. 40 - 100% earn 1.33% final score per 1% original score.

Examples: Original Score Calculation Final S 0% 0% % % x 0.5 % % % x 0.5 % % % x 0.5 % 40% 40% x 0.5 % 50% 40% x 0.5 + 10% x 4/3 33.3% 60% 40% x 0.5 + 20% x 4/3 46.7% 62.5% 40% x 0.5 + 22.5% x 4/3 50% 70% 40% x 0.5 + 30% x 4/3 60% 80% 40% x 0.5 + 40% x 4/3 73.3% 90% 40% x 0.5 + 50% x 4/3 86.7% 100% 40% x 0.5 + 60% x 4/3 100% 114 This has the effect of measuring changes in the 40-100% range more sensitively than for the lower percentages.

Identity Rating Calculations Identity Rating is the average of Coherence and Optimisation 5 Coherence is the average of System Coherence and Focus Coherence Optimisation is the average of System Optimisation and Focus Optimisation System Coherence is the average of Purpose Coherence and Values Coherence Purpose Coherence Personal Basic Purpose Coherence is the answer to Question 1b, converted into a percentage. Personal Enhanced and Organisations Purpose Coherence = Xi (Pi x Pi), where pi is the percentage of votes for each purpose in Question 1a.

Values Coherence Personal Basic Survey Values Coherence is the answer to Question 2c, converted into a percentage.

Personal Enhanced and Organisations • Each response to Question 2a is weighted by the total number of values that the person chose in that survey. (In effect, a person choosing four values 20 splits his vote 4 ways, with 1/S of a vote for each value.) 115 • For each value x, px is calculated: the percentage of areas where x was chosen. Also calculated is p2,x, the percentage of weighted votes value x received. • £x P2,x x px is then calculated. If a person is guided by value x in one area, 5 and px of the other areas of his life are also guided by value x, then his actions are aligned with p2x of his life. Therefore, the total score across all values is £x p2iX x px.

Values Coherence = £x p2,x x px Focus Coherence Focus Coherence is the average of the Focus Area Coherence Scores.

Focus Area Coherence is the average of Focus Area Deviation and Focus Area Importance, except for Personal Basic surveys, where only Focus Area Importance is counted.

Focus Area Deviation Each Focus Area Deviation score is calculated as follows: Each response to Question 3 is coded from 0 = not at all to 4 = all the time. The percentage of votes for each response is calculated. For example Score (S) Respondents (R) 0 = 10% 1 = 20% 2 = 20% 3 = 40% 4 = 10% Converting into percentages, Score (S) Respondents (R) 0% = 10% 0 116 % 50% 75% 100% % 20% 40% 10% 4 2 3 The average difference in interactions between two respondents is then calculated: Focus Area Deviation = 100% - ((((R0 x R1) x (S1 - SO)) + ((R0 x R2) x (S2 - SO)) + ((RO x R3) x (S3 - SO)) + ((RO x R4) x (S4 - SO)) + ((R1 x R2) x (S2 - S1)) + ((R1 x R3) x (S3 - S1)) + ((R1 x R4) x (S4 - S1)) + ((R2 x R3) x (S3 - S2)) + ((R2 x R4) x (S4 - S2)) + ((R3 x R4) x (S4 - S3))) / 20% ) In this example, Focus Area Deviation = 100% - ((((10%x20%)x(25%-0%)) + ((10%x20%)x(50%-0%)) + ((10%x40%)x(75%-0%)) + ((10%x10%)x(100%-0%)) + ((20%x20%)x(50%-25%)) + ((20%x40%)x(75%-25%)) + ((20%x10%)x(100%-25%)) + ((20%x40%)x(75%-50%)) + ((20%x10%)x(100%-50%)) + ((40%x10%)x(100%-75%)) ) / 20%) = 100% - (( 2%x25% + 2%x50% + 4%x75% + 1%x100% + 4%x25% + 8%x50% + 2%x75% + 8%x25% + 2%x50% + 4%x25% ) / 20% ) = 100% - ((0.5% + 1% + 3% + 1% + 1% + 4% + 1.5% + 2% + 1% + 1%) / 20% ) = 100% - (16% I 20%) = 100%-80% = 20% Focus Area Importance is the average response to Question 3 for that focus area, converted into a percentage. 117 System Optimisation System Optimisation is calculated from the average of the responses to Question 6 (for personal basic surveys, Question 8 (for personal enhanced users) or Question 10 (for groups and organisations). For each sub-question, the scaling algorithm is 5 applied, before the overall average is taken.

System Optimisation questions can be subdivided into Empowerment, Maintenance and Freedom categories. The System Empowerment, System Maintenance and System Freedom scores are the average scores for the sub-questions in those categories.

Specific Optimisation Question Results The average for each sub-question of Question 10 is made available as a percentage. This allows the data to integrate into other aspects of this invention, such as enhancing the ability to intervene in a company's culture.

Values Categories Scores These are calculated as follows: The percentage of times each value has been selected in Question 2a is summed within each category (operational, relational, inspirational).

E.g. 40% control + 50% quality = 90% operational % love + 90% understanding = 120% relational 20 60% passion + 30% learning = 90% inspirational These totals are then divided by their sum to obtain percentage scores, i.e. 90% / (90%+120%+90%) = 30% operational and similarly, 40% relational, and 30% inspirational. These are the Values Categories Scores, VCS(O), VCS(R) and VCS(I).

Focus Optimisation is the average of the scores for the Focus Area Optimisation. 118 Focus Area Optimisation Each Focus Area Optimisation score is calculated from the average of the responses to Question 7 (for personal users) or Question 9 (for organisations) for that focus area, converted into a percentage. For each sub-question, the scaling algorithm is 5 applied, before the overall average is taken.

Focus Optimisation questions can be subdivided into Empowerment, Maintenance and Freedom categories. The Focus Empowerment, Focus Maintenance and Focus Freedom scores are the average scores for the sub-questions in those categories.

Focus Area Score Each Focus Area score is the average of the Focus Area Coherence and the Focus Area Optimisation scores for that area.

Life Area Coherence Life Area Coherence is the average of the Life Area Focus and Life Area System Coherence scores calculated based on questions about that life area only.

Life Area Optimisation Life Area Optimisation is the System Optimisation score calculated based on questions about that life area only.

Life Area Empowerment Life Area Empowerment is the Empowerment score calculated based on questions 20 about that life area only.

Life Area Freedom Life Area Freedom is the Freedom score calculated based on questions about that life area only. 119 Life Area Maintenance Life Area Maintenance is the Maintenance score calculated based on questions about that life area only.

Life Area Purpose Coherence Life Area Purpose is the Purpose Coherence score based on questions about that life area only.

Life Area Values Coherence Life Area Values Coherence is the Values Coherence score based on questions about that life area only.

Life Area System Coherence Life Area System Coherence is the average of Life Area Purpose Coherence and Life Area Values Coherence for that life area.

Life Area System Life Area System is the average of Life Area System Coherence and Life Area 15 Optimisation for that life area.

Life Area Focus Life Area Focus is the Focus Coherence score based on questions about that life area only.

Life Area Score Life Area Score is the average of the Life Area Coherence and Life Area Optimisation scores for that Life Area. 120 Match Calculations (Alignment Ratings) Data needed from each party's Identity Rating calculations: Purpose Coherence Values Coherence Focus Area Coherence for each Focus Area (FC1, FC2, FC3, FC4, FC5) Purpose Optimisation Values Optimisation System Optimisation Focus Area Optimisation for each Focus Area (F01, F02, F03, F04, F05) The overall Match Score is the average of the System Match and Focus Match.

System Match is the average of the System Coherence Match and the System Optimisation Match.

System Coherence Match is the average of the Purpose Coherence Match and the Values Coherence Match.

Purpose Coherence Match: 100% -1 PC(X) - PC(Y) | Values Coherence Match: 100% -1 VC(X) - VC(Y) | System Optimisation Match: 100% - (| SO(X) - SO(Y) |) Focus Match The Focus Match is the average of the Focus Pattern Match and the Focus Strength 20 Match. 121 Focus Pattern Match Focus Pattern Match (unsealed) = 100% - (| ( FA1 (X) - FA2(X)) - ( FA1 (Y) - FA2(Y)) | + | ( FA1(X) - FA3(X)) - ( FA1(Y) - FA3(Y)) | + | ( FA1 (X) - FA4(X)) - ( FA1 (Y) - FA4(Y)) | + | ( FA1 (X) - FA5(X)) - ( FA1(Y) - FA5(Y)) | + | ( FA2(X) - FA3(X)) - ( FA2(Y) - FA3(Y)) | + | ( FA2(X) - FA4(X)) - ( FA2(Y) - FA4(Y)) | + | ( FA2(X) - FA5(X)) - ( FA2(Y) - FA5(Y)) | + | ( FA3(X) - FA4(X)) - ( FA3(Y) - FA4(Y)) | + | ( FA3(X) - FA5(X)) - ( FA3(Y) - FA5(Y)) | + | ( FA4(X) - FA5(X)) - ( FA4(Y) - FA5(Y)) |) / 12 where FA is the Focus Area score (average of Focus Coherence and Focus Optimisation for that Focus Area) The scaling algorithm is then applied.

Focus Strength Match: Focus Strength Match (unsealed) = 100% - ((| ( FA1(X) - FA1(Y) | + | ( FA2(X) -FA2(Y) | + | ( FA3(X) - FA3(Y) | + | ( FA4(X) - FA4(Y) | + | ( FA5(X) - FA5(Y) |) I 5) The scaling algorithm is then applied.

Focus Coherence Match: 100% - (( | ( FC1(X) - FC1(Y) | + | ( FC2(X) - FC2(Y) | + | ( FC3(X) - FC3(Y) | + | ( FC4(X) - FC4(Y) | + | ( FC5(X) - FC5(Y) |) / 5 ) Focus Optimisation Match: 100% - ((| ( F01(X) - F01(Y) | + | ( F02(X) - F02(Y) | + | ( F03(X) - F03(Y) | + | ( F04(X) - F04(Y) | + | ( F05(X) - F05(Y) |) / 5 ) The Focus Area Match for area 1 is 100% -1 FA1(X) - FA1(Y) |, and similarly for areas 2 to 5. 122 The Focus Area Coherence Match for area 1 is 100% -1 FC1(X) - FC1(Y) |, and similarly for areas 2 to 5.

The Focus Area Optimisation Match for area 1 is 100% -1 F01(X) - F01(Y) |, and similarly for areas 2 to 5.

Feedback Calculations The feedback calculations provide feedback on the following areas: For Personal Users System Coherence System Coherence is calculated as the average response to Question 2b, with 10 scaling algorithm applied.

Focus Coherence Focus Coherence is the average of the five Question 3 scores.

Focus Area Coherence Focus Area Coherence is calculated for each focus area 'X' as the average response 15 to the Question 3 for that area, with Scaling Algorithm applied.

Focus Optimisation Focus Optimisation is the average of Empowerment, Maintenance and Freedom. Empowerment Empowerment is the average response to the Question 7 Empowerment question, 20 with Scaling Algorithm applied. 123 Freedom Freedom is the average response to the Question 7 Freedom question, with Scaling Algorithm applied.

Maintenance Maintenance is the average response to the Question 7 Maintenance question, with Scaling Algorithm applied.

Focus Area Optimisation Focus Area Optimisation for a particular focus area is the average of Focus Area Empowerment, Focus Area Freedom and Focus Area Maintenance for that area.

For Groups and Organisations System Coherence System Coherence is the average of Purpose Coherence and Values Coherence. Purpose Coherence Purpose Coherence is calculated as the average response to Question 1, with 15 scaling algorithm applied.

Values Coherence Values Coherence is calculated from Question 2b, as follows: Each value listed has a value-score associated with it, corresponding to the percentage of times it has been selected in the organisation's Identity Survey.

Values Coherence score for a single feedback survey = the score for the two values selected, divided by the sum of the scores for the two hub values. 124 The overall Values Coherence score is the average of the Values Coherence scores for all feedback surveys.

Specific Value Coherence For each hub value, its Specific Value Coherence score is calculated as the number 5 of votes for that value in Question 2b divided by the number of feedback surveys that hub value appeared in.

Focus Coherence Focus Coherence is the average of the five Focus Area Coherence scores, taken from Question 3.

Focus Area Coherence Focus Area Coherence is calculated for each focus area 'X' as the average response to Question 3 for that area, with scaling algorithm applied.

Focus Optimisation Focus Optimisation is the average of Empowerment, Maintenance and Freedom. 15 Empowerment Empowerment is the average response to Question 9, with scaling algorithm applied. Freedom Freedom is the average response to Question 9, with scaling algorithm applied. Maintenance Maintenance is the average response to Question 9, with scaling algorithm applied. 125 Focus Area Optimisation Focus Area Optimisation for a particular focus area is the average of Focus Area Empowerment, Focus Area Freedom and Focus Area Maintenance for that area.

Section 4: Question Rotation for Identity Surveys For personal users, there are: 1 x Question 1 a 1 x Question 2a x Question 3b (5 focus areas, 6 life areas) x Question 7 sub-question categories (3 types, 5 focus areas) 18 x Question 8 sub-question categories (3 types of question (Empowerment, Freedom, Maintenance), 6 life areas) Each personal Identity Survey contains ten questions: 1x Question 1a 1 x Question 2a 15 3 x Question 3b 2 x Question 7 3 x Question 8 The questions rotate as follows: For Question 3b: * Focus Area - cycle starting with Focus Area 1 * Life Area - cycle starting with Life Area 1 For Question 7: * Question Type - cycle through E, F, M * Focus Area - cycle starting with Focus Area 1 For Question 8: * Question Type (Empowerment, Freedom, or Maintenance) - cycle as follows: E, F, M, E, F, M, F, M, E, F, M, E, M, E, F, M, E, F This is so that we have one of each type in each survey and so that questions of each type get asked in each Life Area. 126 * Life Area questions in the same way as for the Focus Coherence questions but starting with Area 4.

Starting with Area 4 means that the user is asked a question about each life area (3xFC, 3xSO) in the first survey, allowing us to begin reporting Life Area scores for 5 each Life Area from the first survey.

For organisations, there are: 1 x Question 1a 1 x Question 2a 3 x Question 3a 3 x Question 9 2 x Question 10 1 x Question 1 a 1 x Question 1 b x Question 3a (5 focus areas) 3 x Question 9 sub-question categories (3 question types) x Question 10 sub-question categories (3 types, 5 focus areas) Each survey will have nine questions: 1 PC 1 VC 20 1 FC 3 SO 3 FO The questions rotate as follows: For Question 3: * Focus Area - cycle starting with FA1 For Question 9: * Question Type - cycle through E, F, M 127 * Focus Area - cycle starting with FA1 For Question 10: * Question Type - cycle through E, F, M Culture Fit/Business Check calculations Sense of Self Result The scores from the entity's answers to Part A are compared with the company's own Sense of Self rating scores. Let pAi be the surveyed entity's score for category /' and pBi be the company's own score. The Sense of Self result is then = 100% - ((| pAi - pBi | + | pAii - pBii \ + \ pAiii - pBiii | + | pAiv - pBiv | + | pAv - pBv |) / 5 ). For 10 the purposes of the Culture-Fit/Business Check the following thresholds are used: Over 90% = very high 80% to 90% = high 70% to 80% = medium 60% to 70% = low Under 60% = very low Values Result The values listed in each question for Parts B and C have scores associated with them. The score for a value is the percentage of votes it has received in the company's Identity Rating. The scores for the values selected by the entity 20 completing the survey are totalled and divided by the maximum possible score (if the highest-scoring value was selected in each question) to produce a percentage that is the Values Result.

Over 80% = very high 60% to 80% = high 40% to 60% = medium % to 40% = low Under 20% = very low 128 Overall Result The Values Categories Pattern is calculated from the Sense of Self Result and the Values Result. The Overall Result ranges from Very High to Very Low as above, and is the average of the two levels, rounded down. For example, an individual scoring 5 High for Sense of Self and Low for Values will score Medium for the Overall Result; an individual scoring Very High for Sense of Self and Low for Values will score Medium for the Overall Result.

The company can choose the Pass/Fail setting according to its needs, for example a company with few vacancies may choose a High setting while a company in a tight 10 job market may choose Medium. 3. Comparison The unique method of calculating the Values Rating (so that the number of core values does not matter) allows for comparison of this rating, as well as the other ratings, between entities. This enables the matching calculations to be performed.

Another important form of comparison will be historical comparison of the ratings for the entity in question. This will for example allow managers of a business to correlate their culture-enhancement initiatives with changes in their Identity Rating. 4. Examples The examples that follow are for a commercial organisation.

The following example shows how the calculation of the Purpose Coherence Rating works in practice, for a business.

Example 1: 129 The most-selected purpose, To Serve Customers', which in this very simple example received 2 votes, gained 8 weighted votes. As the weighted votes totalled 16, the Purpose Coherence Rating is 8/16, or 50%. 1 2 3 4 To serve customers 3 2 8 To create tools 3 1 3 To make money 1 1 1 To change the world 4 1 4 Total 16 Purpose Coherence Rating = 50% The following examples show how the calculation of the Values Coherence Rating 5 works in practice, for a business.

Example 2(a): One Core Value In this example, 200 employees voted, and each one voted for a single value. Quality is the core value of this company. The standard method of calculation at present would give a result of 80% for the alignment of this company, but our more accurate, 10 interactions-based model for assessing the culture gives a result of just under 65%.

Value No. Votes No. of Weighted Votes Percentage of People (Px) Percentage of Weighted Votes (p2,x) 100-px P2,x(100- px) Quality 160 160 80 80 1600 Efficiency 12 12 6 6 94 564 Teamwork 95 475 130 Trust 8 8 4 4 96 384 Growth 6 6 3 3 97 291 Beauty 4 4 2 2 98 196 A = 3510 Values Coherence Rating = 64.90% Example 2(b): Several Core Values In this example, 200 employees voted. Quality, customer service, integrity and innovation are the core values of this company. The people who voted for quality, also voted for customer service, integrity, and innovation. The others all voted for a single value. The calculations show that the overall score remains the same, although there are now four core values rather than one. The consistency is due to the weighting of votes, as described above. This is another advantage of the present tool over previous methods of collecting data on organisational culture.

Value No. Votes No. of Weighted Votes Percentage of People (Px) Percentage of Weighted Votes (p2,x) 100- px p2,x (100-px) Quality 160 40 80 400 Customer Service 160 40 80 400 Integrity 160 40 80 400 Innovation 160 40 80 400 131 Efficiency 12 12 6 6 94 564 Teamwork 95 475 Trust 8 8 4 4 96 384 Growth 6 6 3 3 97 291 Beauty 4 4 2 2 98 196 A = 3510 Values Coherence Rating = 64.90% Example 2(c): Improvement - Becoming More Aligned In this example, the core value of quality has become a stronger part of the company's culture, and more people now identify it as guiding them in their work. This results in a higher Values Coherence Rating than in 1(a).

Value No. votes No. of Weighted Votes Percentage of People (Px) Percentage of Weighted Votes (p2iX) 100-px P2,x (100- px) Quality 180 180 90 90 900 Efficiency 6 6 3 3 97 291 Teamwork 2.5 2.5 97.5 243.75 Trust 4 4 2 2 98 196 Growth 3 3 1.5 1.5 98.5 147.75 132 Beauty 2 2 1 1 99 99 A = 1877.5 Values Coherence Rating = 81.23% Example 3: Perfection In this example, everyone in the company holds the same values, truth and quality.

Value No. Votes No. of Weighted Votes Percentage of People (Px) Percentage of Weighted Votes (p2,x) 100- px p2,x(100- px) Truth 200 100 100 50 0 0 Quality 200 100 100 50 0 0 Values Coherence Rating = 100% Example 4: Chaos In this example, everyone is guided by different values, all of which are unique.

No. of Percentage Percentage Weighted of People of Weighted Value No. Votes Votes (Px) Votes (p2,x) 100-px P2,x (100- Px) 1 (200 1 (200 0.5 (200 0.5 (200 99.5 (200 49.75(200 Other times) times) times) times) times) times) 133 A = 9950 Values Coherence Rating 0.50% The theoretical lowest possible score is when each individual votes for a unique value. In this case, since the number of employees is 100/ px> the calculation becomes: A = (100/ px)( px)(100-px) = 10000-100 px Therefore, Values Coherence Rating = (10000-A)/10000 =px/100 = px % A company with 10,000 employees, for example, could score a minimum of 0.01% if every single employee was guided by a unique value. This 0.01% baseline is a result of the finite number of employees, since a company with infinite employees could score a minimum of 0%. The error is insignificant except for very small companies 10 (under 100 employees). In these cases, it can be compensated for, by changing the values rating calculation to: Values Coherence Rating = (10000-A)/(10000- px).

Example 5(a): Hiring Aligned Employees In this example, the company described in example 2(c) hires 20 new employees (increasing its workforce by 10%), and screens them in order to ensure that they are 15 guided by the value of quality. All the employees complete the questionnaire and the company's results are now as shown below: Value No. votes No. of Weighted Votes Percentage of People (Px) Percentage of Weighted Votes (p2,x) 100- px P2,x (100- px) Quality 200 200 90.91 90.91 9.09 826.44 134 Efficiency 6 6 2.73 2.73 97.27 265.28 Teamwork 2.27 2.27 97.73 222.1 Trust 4 4 1.82 1.82 98.18 178.51 Growth 3 3 1.36 1.36 98.64 134.5 Beauty 2 2 0.91 0.91 99.09 90.08 A = 1716.94 Values Coherence Rating = 82.83% The hiring of aligned employees has had a small positive effect on the Values Coherence Rating (and therefore, also on the Identity Rating).

Example 5(b): Hiring Non-Aligned Employees Value No. votes No. of Weighted Votes Percentage of People (px) Percentage of Weighted Votes (P2,x) 100- Px P2,x (100-Px) Quality 182 182 82.73 82.73 17.27 1428.93 Efficiency 8 8 3.64 3.64 96.36 350.41 Teamwork 7 7 3.18 3.18 96.82 308.06 Trust 7 7 3.18 3.18 96.82 308.06 Growth 2.27 2.27 97.73 222.11 Beauty 4 4 1.82 1.82 98.18 178.51 135 Service 3 3 1.36 1.36 98.64 134.5 Innovation 3 3 1.36 1.36 98.64 134.5 Passion 1 1 0.45 0.45 99.55 45.25 A = 3110.33 Values Coherence Rating = 68.90% In this case, the company increased its workforce by 20 employees (10%), but did not screen the new recruits, resulting in a rise in the variety of values operating within the culture, and a consequent decrease in the Values Coherence Rating.

Figures 5-7 show flow charts of exemplary embodiments of the present invention.

More specifically, Figure 5 shows a the application of the invention applied as a business tool in relation to the administration of the questionnaire for a company.

Figure 6 shows a flow chart of algorithms applied in order to generate the purpose and values questions for successive questionnaires.

Figure 7 shows the application of the invention as a business tool in relation to its 10 function as a screening tool.

As discussed above, the various methods of the present invention may be implemented on a variety of physical systems via electronic communication means and networks such as the internet, intranets and the like. Figure 8 shows a schematic block diagram of one possible system for implementing the above methods on a computer system (1).

As previously defined, the term 'entity' or 'entities' includes any individual, family, organisation, club, society, company, partnership, religion, or the like that exists as a 136 IPONZ 27 FEB 2008 particular and discrete unit. However, though for the sake of clarity and convenience the term individual or user (as appropriate) is used in the examples herein, though this does not restrict the present invention to same.

The computer system (1) includes a host computer in the form of an internet web 5 server (2), containing a processor (3) connectable to a network, in particular the internet (4), a database (5) accessible via website (10) accessible over said network and a plurality of data input devices, represented by user computers (6, 7).

It will be appreciated that by those skilled in the art that the invention is not necessarily limited to use with the internet (4) and that a connection to the host 10 computer/web server (2) may be provided by a propriety network (8), e.g. enabling access by via text-messaging telephones (9) for example.

. Notes The invention as described above has the potential to enhance an entity's financial and non-financial performance by providing it with accurate and timely information 15 regarding the current state of its culture or sense of self, enabling the correlation of said information with specific techniques and processes that are suited the specific situation in which the entity finds itself with regard to its culture or sense of self, and ensuring that new relationships are ones likely to fit well with the entity's culture or sense of self, rather than conflicting with it.

Furthermore the method of data collection has an intrinsically positive autopoietic effect on the entity's culture or sense of self, through the evolutionary nature of the questions and the feedback loops generated through the questionnaire process, and sustenance of the entity's culture or sense of self in this way can also be expected to be of benefit to the organization or business. 137 In summary, it can be seen that as such the invention has a distinct advantage in helping an entity to successfully and profitably understand and enhance its culture or sense of self.

Since no other diagnostic systems are publicly available to help entities enhance 5 their performance by quantifying the aspects of a entity's culture or sense of self (the strength of its purpose and values) that relate to its performance prospects, the present invention provides the public with a useful choice.

Aspects of the present invention have been described by way of example only and it should be appreciated that modifications and additions may be made thereto without 10 departing from the scope thereof as defined in the appended claims.

References: [1] James C. Collins and Jerry I. Porras, Built to Last. Harper Collins 1994. [2] Samuel B. Graves and Sandra Waddock, 'Beyond Built to Last': An evaluation of 15 Stakeholder Relationships in 'Built to Last' Companies, Business and Society Review, 2000, 105(4):393-418 [3] John P. Kotter & James L. Heskett, Corporate Culture and Performance, Free Press (1992) [4] J. M. Carlson and John Doyle, 'Complexity and Robustness', Proc. Natl. Acad. 20 Sci. USA (v. 99, Suppl 1: 2538-2545) 138

Claims (21)

Claims

1. A method of evaluation of the state of an entity's sense of self or culture (henceforth Identity Rating), said method including the steps of: - collecting data in the form of responses from an entity via a questionnaire including questions on predetermined aspects of the entity's sense of self or culture, said aspects including at least one of values, purposes, and/or inclusive focus related to said entity, wherein said questions requires the entity to select, prioritise and/or submit one or more said aspects; - storing the collected data on an electronic storage device; - manipulating the stored collected data to generate a subsequent questionnaire including questions on aspects that have been most-selected, highest prioritised and/or frequently submitted from the preceding questionnaire and collecting data in the form of further responses, and - repeating the above steps for a predetermined number of occurrences.

2. A method as claimed in claim 1, further including the step of: - performing calculations to quantify said collected data for the entity's Identity Rating on a percentage scale, against a predetermined range of values stored on an electronic storage device.

3. A method as claimed in claim 1 or claim 2, wherein said collected responses are assigned a numerical equivalence from a range of predetermined increments pre-generated and stored on an electronic storage device.

4. A method as claimed in any one of claims 1 - 3, wherein said method further includes the step of: 139 IPONZ 27 FEB 2008 - removing the least-selected, lowest prioritised or infrequently submitted aspects from questions incorporated in the subsequently generated questionnaire and storing said subsequently generated questionnaire on an electronic storage device.

5. A method as claimed in any one of claims 1 - 4, wherein the questionnaire displays a randomly generated list of purposes, or values selectable by the entity.

6. A method as claimed in claim 5, wherein a purpose or value selected by the entity is compared with a stored master list of purposes and values pre-generated and stored on an electronic storage device.

7. A method as claimed in claim 6, wherein if an entity wishes to select an unlisted purpose or value, it may be submitted by the entity and stored on an electronic storage device as part of the entities collected responses, said submitted purpose or value then being added to the selectable list of purposes or values for said subsequently generated questionnaire.

8. A method as claimed in claim 7, wherein said submitted purpose or value is compared to a master list of purposes or values, which master list is pre-generated and stored on an electronic storage device and said submitted purpose or value is added to said master list and stored on an electronic storage device if the submitted purpose or value is not present in said master list.

9. A method as claimed in claim 8, wherein after completion of each questionnaire, a number of selections for an individual purpose or value is divided by number of selectable appearances of the purpose or value, wherein the purposes or values with the highest calculated result are listed as selectable purposes, or values on a subsequently generated questionnaire, which questionnaire is stored on an electronic storage device.

10. A method as claimed in claim 9, wherein if two purposes or values have an equal calculated result, the purpose or value with the most appearances is retained and stored on an electronic storage device. 140 IPONZ 27 FEB 2008

11. A method as claimed in any one of claims 1-10, wherein said method further includes the step of automatically creating a report that provides an entity with details of any change in its Identity Rating over a predetermined time period.

12. A method of validity testing results obtained from the method of evaluation claimed in any one of claims 1-11, said validity testing method including the steps of: - collecting data in the form of further responses from an entity via a questionnaire including questions derived from said method of evaluation on predetermined aspects of the entity's sense of self or culture, said aspects including at least one of values, purposes, and/or inclusive focus related to said entity, wherein said questions requires the entity to select, prioritise and/or submit one or more said aspects; - storing said collected data on an electronic storage device; - assigning a numerical equivalence to the further responses from a range of predetermined increments; and - performing validity calculations on the numerical equivalence of the responses obtained to determine if the average responses between two different questions assessing the same aspect of the entity's Identity Rating differ outside predetermined limits.

13. A method determining mutual alignment between two or more entities by assessing the degree to which the aspects of the Identity Rating produced by the evaluation method of any one of claims 1-11 of the said entities are aligned (henceforth Alignment Rating), said Alignment Rating method including the steps of: - performing calculations on the data collected from the method and thereby producing scores that reflect the degree of fit of the sense of self/culture of the two entities; - storing said scores on an electronic storage device; and 141 IPONZ 27 FEB 2008 - providing said scores to one or both of the entities.

14. A method as claimed in claim 13, further including administering a further questionnaire with questions derived from the content of questions of the Identity Rating of one of the entities in order to more precisely calculate the degree to which respondents are aligned with the Identity Rating of that entity (henceforth Culture-Fit).

15. A method of determining alignment (henceforth Feedback Rating) between an entity's own self-perception and feedback from one or more other respondent entities, said method including the steps of: - administering a questionnaire to obtain responses from said other entities to provide feedback on the entity, said questionnaire including questions on predetermined aspects of the entity's sense of self or culture, said aspects including at least one of values, purposes, and/or inclusive focus related to said entity, wherein said questions requires said other respondent entities to select, prioritise and/or submit one or more said aspects, - assigning a numerical equivalence to the further responses from a range of predetermined increments, which predetermined increments are pre-generated and stored on an electronic storage device; and - collating all the feedback responses and calculating the degree of fit between the respondent entities' perception of the entity's aspects and the entity's own self-perception

16. A method as claimed in claim 15, further including the step of: categorizing said feedback responses according to the nature of the relationships between said other entities and the entity. 142 IPONZ 27 FEB 2008

17. A method of producing a publicly available Integrity Rating, calculated from the response feedback obtained from said Feedback Rating method claimed in any one of claims 15-16, to determine the degree to which an entity's behaviour towards other respondent entities matches the entity's self-perception, said method including the steps of: - storing the feedback responses for an entity on an electronic storage device; - manipulating the stored feedback responses by ranking them according to the Integrity Ratings of said respondent entities; - performing calculations on said ranked feedback responses obtained from respondent entities with an Integrity Ratings in the upper quartile to determine the degree of correspondence between the entity's perceived by the respondent entities and the entity's self-perception - and publicising the calculation results as the Integrity Rating for the entity.

18. A method of calculating the degree of alignment between different entities and aspects of an entity's sense of self or culture, said aspects including values and/or purposes, said method including the steps of storing an aspect of an entity's sense of self or culture, of calculating the area bounded by a power-law graph of the form f(x) - x"a, where f(x) is an aspect of an entity's sense of self or culture, including values and/or purposes, x is the number of entities sharing that aspect, and a is a constant, wherein said alignment is inversely proportional to the calculated area.

19. A method of assessing an individual entity's degree of alignment with an organizational entity's values wherein each value selected by an individual is stored on an electronic storage medium and manipulated by weighting it total number of values selected by that individual entity in the assessment, method including the step of - calculating Ex p2,x. px, entity by the said 143 IPONZ 27 FEB 2008 where for each value x, px is the percentage of individual entities who selected that value, while p2x is the percentage of weighted votes the value received.

20. A method of assessing an individual entity's degree of alignment with an organizational entity's purposes wherein each purpose selected by an individual entity is stored on an electronic storage medium and manipulated by weighting it by the total number of purposes selected by that individual entity in the assessment, said method including the step of - calculating Zy P2,y ■ Py, where for each value y, py is the percentage of individual entities who selected that purpose, while p2y is the percentage of weighted votes the purpose received.

21. A computer implemented system for performing the method claimed in any one of claims 1-20 said system including a processor, data storage means, a user interface and display, said processor being capable of operating software programmed with any one of said methods and performing any associated calculations required, said data storage means being capable of storing data collected and calculated by said methods, said user interface being capable of receiving responses inputs from an entity. END OF CLAIMS 144 IPONZ 27 FEB 2008