More Tips on the Group Development Report

A few additional points about the graphs and interpretation. Here’s an example of a GDR with labels on it. Below, I’ve written what I might say if I was talking a group through this, plus additional notes for your understanding.

Open

1. EQ Opportunities

“On this graph you can see the connection between EQ scores and performance outcomes. 33% of the group is in the top-right box – which is the sustainable performance zone. Later, let’s discuss this and the implications for you.”

This graph is intended, along w #2, to help frame the importance of EQ for this group.

1a. The biggest % of people is here – that’s probably an issue for this group. In a high performing group, we’d expect a large % of people in the top-right corner (high EQ and high Outcomes)

2. Gap

“On the right you can see that for this group, there’s a great value in increasing EQ. Those with the highest EQ have a massively higher score on the outcomes. On the next slide, we’ll look at those outcomes – the impact of EQ.”

Divide the group into 4 (approximately) equal quarters based on their EQ scores. On this graph, you’ll see the OUTCOMES overall average for the lowest of the 4 quartiles vs the highest.

In this case, there’s a big gap. That means increasing EQ is very important for this group.

In some cases, it’s a small gap – that means there is not much difference between the lowest 1/4 and highest 1/4… so increasing EQ may be less clearly important to them.

3. Success Factors

“On the left, you can see the group’s average scores… and scores of each person, on what we call the 4 ‘success factors.' You can see there’s a pretty big variation of scores – and a trend of the average scores with Effectiveness as the lowest and Wellbeing as the highest. That may create some important opportunities for you – what do you think about these averages?”

Be careful! Don’t get into a discussion of who-is-who on the circles. The point is to see trends and outliers. EG there are a couple of people w very much higher scores on Effectiveness – how might that feel?

3a. This is the Standard Deviation of 3 – how widespread (left-to-right) are the group members vs the average? You can see it visually… they don’t span the WHOLE range, but they’re not tightly clustered.

4. Pulses and Benchmarks

“On the right, you can see the sub-components of the 4 outcomes on the left and the group average score on each. The little triangles are a benchmark of the highest performing teams – any thoughts or feelings about this graph?”

4a. “At the bottom you see a calculation about the individuals – not the group overall – asking: How many people in the group have a lot of variation in these scores? Nothing wrong w variation, but, if someone is regularly having some of these relatively high and others low, it represents an imbalance and a risk. What do you think about these scores in terms of your own alignment across these outcomes?”

Note, this is NOT the same as “Tight, Medium, Wide” – it’s not a calculation of SD which tells about the group-as-a-group. It’s a count of individual people… how many individuals have a big variation in their own outcomes? EG if someone frequently has “Skilled” Achievement and “Emerging” Balance, they have a risk of burnout.

5. Emotional Intelligence

“There are 3 steps to using emotional intelligence – shown here on the left. Again, you see individual scores adding up to an average. In blue is self-awareness, which we call Know Yourself. In red is self-management, which we call Choose Yourself. The red area is self-direction, or connecting beyond yourself, which we call Give Yourself. What do you observe here?”

This graphs is almost “Wide” - you can see visually that there’s a big range of scores on each Pursuit. What’s it like for those people who are much lower or higher than the average? Is the group using those strengths?

6. Competencies and Benchmarks

“On the right, you see the sub-components of the 3 areas on the left. Again, you can see the high performance benchmarks. What do you notice here?”

6a. This is just like 4a. Again, not “bad” to be misaligned sometimes, but if that’s a consistent condition for some people, they’ll have a hard time accessing their EQ strengths.

“At the bottom, you can see a calculation like the previous slide – about how many people have a lot of variation in their EQ scores, middle variation, or are quite consistent. What might be a risk of having a lot of variation in one’s EQ competencies? What does this data suggest?”

7. AVERAGE Sustainable Performance

“At the top of this page, you can see that as an OVERALL AVERAGE, the group’s EQ scores and Outcome scores are almost the same. That suggests a stable state.”

To understand this better, look at the little bars in grey at the bottom of the page, where in this graphic, the top bar represents EQ, and the bottom bar represents Outcomes:

Open

8. INDIVIDUAL Sustainable Performance

“The top graph is about the group-on-average. The lower half of this page shows you as individuals – how many of you have higher EQ than outcomes… how many are about equal… how many have EQ lower than outcomes.

In this case, 14% have EQ higher than Outcomes – suggesting you might be able to increase your outcomes pretty easily by leveraging EQ.

62% are in the balanced state.

24% are in a situation where EQ scores are lower than Outcome scores – which, if it continues like that over time, presents a risk of burnout.

What are the implications of this for you?”

Again, nothing inherently good or bad about being in each condition today… the question is really: “Is this typical for you?” and if so, there are implications.

BTW “Sustainable” doesn’t mean “good” – it could be low scores on both EQ+Outcomes… it just means a kind of equilibrium. If we go back to graph #1, we can see more about this: 49% are low+low (equilibrium, but not high performance)