WO2007032692A2

WO2007032692A2 - Method and system of evaluation of alignment of relationships within or between entities

Info

Publication number: WO2007032692A2
Application number: PCT/NZ2006/000241
Authority: WO
Inventors: Branton Kenton-Dau
Original assignee: Vortex Technology Services Limited
Priority date: 2005-09-16
Filing date: 2006-09-18
Publication date: 2007-03-22
Also published as: JP2009509230A; EP1924964A2; GB0721565D0; AU2006291644A1; EP1924964A4; KR20080064724A; GB2441452A; AU2006291644B2; CA2606241A1; RU2007139542A

Description

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 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 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 cross-purposes. A simple example of this is the process of alignment that occurs 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 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, 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 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 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 purpose and values guide their actions.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 iπtra-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 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 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' 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: 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, generating 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.

According to one embodiment, said collected responses are assigned a numerical equivalence from a range of predetermined increments.

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. 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 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 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 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.

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 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 aspects of the present invention, a purpose or values selected by the entity is compared with a stored master list of purposes and values. 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, 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.

According to another aspect 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 facilitating remedial action if needed.

According to another aspect, 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 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; providing said scores to one or both of the entities.

According to another aspect of the present invention, 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 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 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; 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 between said other entities and the entity.

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 including the steps of: ranking the feedback responses for an entity 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 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 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, 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 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-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 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 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~^α , 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 α is a constant coefficient of alignment which increases with increasing alignment. Thus, a steeper graph bounding a 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 below in graphs 1 and 2), since there are a few core values, with each other value guiding only a few people.

Number of values Number of values

Number of people sharing value Number of people sharing value

Graph 1 : A power-law graph of form Graph 2: A power-law graph of form f(x) ~ x~" with small a f(x) ~ x~" with large a

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 «, in a directly analogous manner to the findings that strengthening an entity's alignment around its purpose, values, and inclusive focus 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) ~ x^"β, 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 α is a constant, wherein said alignment is inversely proportional to the calculated area. 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) ~ x^'α, 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 α 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 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 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 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 maximum of another 40% x 40% = 16% of interactions might be pi//pose/va/ues-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 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 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 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 vote 4 ways, with ¹Zl of a vote for each value.

For each value 'x\ p_x is the percentage of people who selected that value, while p_2Xis the percentage of weighted votes the value received.

The sum over all values, of the product of P_2X and p_x is thus calculated, i.e. Px-

If an individual entity is guided by value x, in one area, and p_x of the other areas of their life are also guided by value x, then their actions are aligned with p_2x of their life. Therefore, the total score across all values is ∑_x p_2|X . ρ_x . Therefore, the strength of the entity's alignment around its values = ∑_x p₂,_x . p_x

An equivalent calculation applies in the case of the entity's purpose, i.e., for each purpose y, where p_y is the percentage of entities who selected that purpose, and p_2y is the percentage of weighted votes the purpose received, then the strength of the entity's alignment around its purposes = ∑_y p₂,_y . p_y

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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' 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 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.

Brief Description of Drawings

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 flow chart according to one embodiment of the present invention applied as a business tool in relation to the administration of the questionnaire for a company; Figure 2 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 3 shows a flow chart of the sequence according to a further embodiment of the present invention applied as a business tool in relation to its function as a screening tool. Best Modes 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. Alignment Rating

C. Feedback Rating and Integrity 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

2. Calculations on data

3. Comparison

4. Examples

5. Notes

It should be noted that the present invention can be applied in several ways. In a 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]?

Or 1c:

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: [insert]

Question 2

Two part question, - 2a, and 2b

Question 2a Table 1.

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 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 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 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 calculated, for each purpose, which produces a number between 0 and 1 in each 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:

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

4b:

Value 'XT is selected at random from the five values on the list for which the previous employees taking the survey have voted for most frequently. Question 5a Table 1

20 values are then listed as described below. Table 2

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 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.

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.

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

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

X3 cycles through the following list, so that if questionnaire n contains X3(1), questionnaire π+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)

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)

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 Enhanced.

X5 cycles through the following list so that if questionnaire n contains X4(1), questionnaire /7+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

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?

A2. To what extent is your company's reputation important to your sense of 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?

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.

Part C

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 Numbers in brackets refer to calculations listed in full detail below the tables

All Profile Calculations

Matching Calculations

Feedback Calculations

Culture Fit/Business Check calculations

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 p,.

Therefore, D, (p, x p) is the total percentage of aligned interactions.

D, (p, x pi) is the Purpose Alignment rating.

(2) Values Alignment

The Values Alignment rating is calculated from question 5a:

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 ¹A of a vote for each value.)

2 For each value 'x\ the percentage of areas where x was chosen p_x is calculated. Also calculated is P₂,_x, the percentage of weighted votes value 'x' received.

3 Σx-P₂,x-Px is then calculated. If a person is guided by value x in one area, and p_x of the other areas of his life are also guided by value x, then his actions are aligned with p_∑x of his life. Therefore, the total score across all values

∑ 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.

The Sense of Self Rating is the average of the percentage scores for X4(1) to X4(S).

(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.

(4) Sense of Self Rating: Personal

The Sense of Self Rating is calculated from question 7:

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 p_x, the average percentage of times stakeholders have selected the value (for a Standard

Personal Profile user, each value will score either 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%

∑x-P.x-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.

For each category, the individuals' average responses (as stored for their Identity Ratings) axe 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.

(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.

(B) 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. (11) Sense of Self Commitment: Commercial and Non-Commercial

The Sense of Self rating is calculated from question 8:

The Sense of Self rating is the average of the percentage scores for X4(1) to X4(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.

(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.

(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.

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

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

(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

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 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 non-commercial 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:

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 | p Yi - pXi | across all feedback surveys.

(17c) Sense of Self Commitment Feedback

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 /.

(17 d) Specific Level of Self Commitment

For each level of self /, its Specific Level of Self Commitment score is calculated as the average | p Yi - pXi \ across all feedbacks.

(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

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 + 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 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% - (QO(A) - O(B)\ + \R(A) - R(B)\ + \I(A) - I(B)\ ) 13) (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.

(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 /to v

(stakeholder group). Call these pAi, pAii, pAiil, pAiv, pAv for Entity A and pBi, pBii, pBiii, pBiv, pBv for Entity B.

) / 5 ).

(22b) Specific Levels of Self Fit

The Specific Level of Self Fit for a particular level of self / is:

100% - 1 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 B//, B's focus. We then use the Level of Self Commitment ratings to calculate the Sense of Self Focus Fit as follows:

Sense of Self Focus Fit = 100% - (( | pAi - pBi | + | pAii - pBii | ) / 2 )

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 = 90% operational, 30% love + 90% understanding = 120% relational, 60% passion + 30% learning = 90% inspirational.

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 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

(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 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

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 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

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 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]) + (Score[GroupB] x NumberofSurveysfGroupB]) /

(NumberofSurveys[GroupA] + NumberofSurveysfGroupB])

Notes on Calculations

The overall Stakeholder Alignment rating is calculated using all feedbacks received. 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.

The feedbacks used to calculate the Integrity Rating are those for which the respondents' own Integrity Ratings aye 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 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 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:

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%.

The following examples show how the calculation of the Values Rating 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, interactions-based model for assessing the culture gives a result of just under 65%.

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 organizational culture.

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).

Example 3: Perfection

In this example, everyone in the company holds the same values, truth and quality.

Example 4: Chaos

In this example, everyone is guided by different values, all of which are unique.

The theoretical lowest possible score is when each individual votes for a unique value. In this case, since the number of employees is 100/p_x, the calculation becomes:

A = (100/ p_x)( Pχ)(100- p_x) = 10000 -100 px

Therefore, Values Rating = (10000-Λ)/10000= p_x /100 = p_x %

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 values rating calculation to: Values Rating = (10000-Λ)/(10000- p_x).

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 company's results are now as shown below:

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

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.

Second Mode for Carrying Out the Invention

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

2. Calculations on data

3. Comparison

4. Examples

5. Notes

1. Content of questions and coding of responses

Identity Rating, Match Rating (Alignment Rating), Feedback Rating

Question 1a

Table 1.

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 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 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 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.

Question 2a

Table 1

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 appearances is retained.

Question 2b - for feedback only

This question is repeated four times.

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

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) 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.

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

Question 5

Question 6a - System Optimisation Questions - Personal Basic

Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated):

Question 7 - Enhanced Personal Survey - Focus Optimisation Questions

Those based upon these inserts: being happy earning the respect of others creating strong persona! relationships improving the happiness of others making a contribution to society

Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated):

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

Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated):

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 8 - Enhanced Personal Survey - Life Area Questions - System Optimisation

Those based on these inserts: succeeding in my work improving my finances nurturing my intimate relationships

- having fun

- learning looking after myself

Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated):

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

Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated):

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)

- working to create a better world = X3(5)

For non-commercial: 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)

Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated):

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:

Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated):

Question 10 - System Optimisation Questions - Groups and Organisations

Answers are coded as follows (scores reversed where indicated):

Culture Fit and Business Check

Culture Fit and Business Check questions are as follows:

Part A

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:

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. Part C

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

Section 1 : Definitions and Type of Calculations Section 2: Identity Rating and Match Rating Breakdown 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

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) PC = Purpose Coherence = alignment-style calculation 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(I) = System Empowerment in Life Area 1 (for personal users) FSL(I) = System Freedom in Life Area 1 (for personal users) MSL(I) = 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

FA(1 ), ... = Focus Area score (for each Focus Area) = simple average of FC(1 ) and FO(1 ) SGM = System Coherence Match = difference-based calculation SOM = System Optimisation Match = difference-based calculation Section 2: Identity Rating and Match Rating Breakdown

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(I) to ESL(5), FSL(I) to FSL(5), MSL(I) to MSL(5), EF(1) to EF(5), FF(1) to FF(5),

Chart

FA(I), FA(2), ... SCM SOM

/

FC(I) FO(I) FC(2) F0(2) ...

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 this into the final score as follows:

O - 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 Score

0% 0%

10% 10% x 0.5 5%

20% 20% x 0.5 10%

30% 30% x 0.5 15%

40% 40% x 0.5 20%

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%

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

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 1 b, converted into a percentage.

Personal Enhanced and Organisations

Purpose Coherence = ∑j (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 splits his vote 4 ways, with ¹A of a vote for each value.)

• For each value x, p_x 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, and p_x of the other areas of his life are also guided by value x, then his actions are aligned with p_2x of his life. Therefore, the total score across all values is ∑_x p_2lχ X p_x .

Values Coherence = ∑_x p₂,_x x p_x

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

25% 20% 1

50% 20% 2

75% 40% 3

100% = 10% 4

The average difference in interactions between two respondents is then calculated:

Focus Area Deviation = 100% - (( ((RO x R1 ) x (S1 - SO)) + ((RO 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% / 20%) = 100% - 80% = 20%

Focus Area Importance is the average response to Question 3 for that focus area, converted into a percentage. 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 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

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% 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. 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 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. L/fe 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 about that life area only. Life Area Freedom

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

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 (FO1 , FO2, FO3, FO4, FO5)

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 Match.

Focus Pattern Match

Focus Pattern Match (unsealed) =

100% - ( K FAI(X) - FA2(X) ) - ( FAI(Y) - FA2(Y) ) | +

I ( FA1 (X) - FA3(X) ) - ( FA1 (Y) - FA3(Y) ) | +

I ( FAI(X) - FA4(X) ) - ( FAI(Y) - FA4(Y) ) | +

I ( FAI(X) - FA5(X) ) - ( FAI(Y) - FA5(Y) ) | +

I ( FA2(X) - FA3(X) ) - ( FA2(Y) - FA3(Y) ) | +

I ( FA2(X) - FA4(X) ) - ( FA2(Y) - FA4(Y) ) | +

I ( FA2(X) - FA5(X) ) - ( FA2(Y) - FA5(Y) ) | +

I ( FA3(X) - FA4(X) ) - ( FA3(Y) - FA4(Y) ) | +

I ( FA3(X) - FA5(X) ) - ( FA3(Y) - FA5(Y) ) 1 +

I ( 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% - ( ( | ( FAI(X) - FAI(Y) | + | ( FA2(X) - FA2(Y) | + | ( FA3(X) - FA3(Y) | + | (

FA4(X) - FA4(Y) | + | ( FA5(X) - FA5(Y) | ) / 5 )

The scaling algorithm is then applied.

Focus Coherence Match: 100% - ( ( I ( FCI(X) - FCI(Y) | + | ( FC2(X) - FC2(Y) | + | ( FC3(X) - FC3(Y) | + | ( FC4(X) - FC4(Y) | + | ( FCS(X) -

FC5(Y) | ) / 5 )

Focus Optimisation Match:

100% - ( ( I ( FOI(X) - FOI(Y) | + | ( FO2(X) - FO2(Y) | + | ( FO3(X) - FO3(Y) | + | ( FO4(X) - FO4(Y) | + | ( FO5(X) -

FO5(Y) | ) / 5 )

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

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

The Focus Area Optimisation Match for area 1 is 100% - ) FOI(X) - FOI(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 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 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, with Scaling Algorithm applied.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

Focus Area Optimisation

Section 4: Question Rotation for Identity Surveys

For personal users, there are:

1 x Question 1 a

1 x Question 2a

30 x Question 3b (5 focus areas, 6 life areas)

15 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:

1 x Question 1a

1 x Question 2a 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.

* 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 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 1a 1 x Question 1 b

5 x Question 3a (5 focus areas)

3 x Question 9 sub-question categories (3 question types)

15 x Question 10 sub-question categories (3 types, 5 focus areas)

Each survey will have nine questions:

1 PC

1 VC

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

* 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% - (( I pAi - pBi I + I pAii - pBii | + | pAlii - 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

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 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

20% to 40% = low

Under 20% = very low

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 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.

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 :

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%.

The following examples show how the calculation of the Values Coherence Rating 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, interactions-based model for assessing the culture gives a result of just under 65%.

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.

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).

Example 4: Chaos

The theoretical lowest possible score is when each individual votes for a unique value. In this case, since the number of employees is 100/ p_x, the calculation becomes:

A = (100/ pχ)( pχ)(100- px) = 10000 -10O p_x

Therefore, Values Coherence Rating = (10000-A)/10000= p_x /100 = p_x %

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 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 guided by the value of quality. All the employees complete the questionnaire and the company's results are now as shown below.

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

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 1-3 show flow charts of exemplary embodiments of the present invention.

More specifically, figure 1 shows a the application of the invention applied as a business tool in relation to the administration of the questionnaire for a company.

Figure 2 shows a flow chart of algorithms applied in order to generate the purpose and values questions for successive questionnaires. Figure 3 shows the application of the invention as a business tool in relation to its 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 4 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 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 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 computer/web server (2) may be provided by a propriety network (8), e.g. enabling access by via text-messaging telephones (9) for example.

S. 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 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.

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 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 departing from the scope thereof.

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 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. Sci. USA (v. 99, Suppl 1: 2538-2545)

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, generating 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.

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.

4. A method as claimed in any one of claims 1 - 3, wherein said method further includes the step of: removing the least-selected, lowest prioritised or infrequently submitted aspects from questions incorporated in the subsequently generated questionnaire.

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.

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 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 and added if not present.

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.

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.

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, 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; 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; 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.

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: ranking the feedback responses for an entity 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 step of calculating the area bounded by a power-law graph of the form f(x) ~ x*, 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 α 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 entity is weighted by the total number of values selected by that individual entity in the assessment, said method including the step of calculating ∑_x p_2lX . Px, where for each value x, p_xis the percentage of individual entities who selected that value, while p_∑xis 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 weighted by the total number of purposes selected by that individual entity in the assessment, said method including the step of calculating ∑_y p₂,_y . p_y, where for each value y, p_y is the percentage of individual entities who selected that purpose, while P_2y 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.