Meeting the Standards of Industry 4
As a consulting house, it is of critical importance that we continuously co-create with our partners, empowering them to craft their most effective human capital investment strategy. To achieve this, the CCI Professional Empirical Research Based Consulting Model® has been developed that allows for statistically validated and reliable evaluation to take place. As a result, both qualitative and quantitative methods may be employed, depending on the outcomes sought. Once the research section is completed, the co-crafting will lead to preferably both a Human Capital Crafting (people-centric) and Organizational Architecture (environment-centric) approach. Experience has shown that optimizing only with the environment may lead to confusion, whereas the development of only the leaders may lead to frustration. The consulting cycle is completed by ensuring an adequate return on investment measurements are implemented to learn from and adjust any ongoing processes.
From Consulting to Co-Crafting
From a craftsman’s toolbox perspective, the CCI Professional Human Capital Mastery Model® has been developed, based on a four-quadrant approach of leadership and followership interaction (directive), contrasted with the level of support that each member requires within their development journey. These four mastery quadrants are therefore appropriately termed (a) M1 – Personal Mastery (high directive / low support), (b) M2 – Team Mastery (high directive / high support), (c) M3 – Performance Mastery (low directive / high support), and (D) M4 – Organizational Mastery (low directive / low support).
Working with a Meta-Modern Paradigm
Each of the mastery quadrants contains a number of standardized focus areas (modules) that can be incorporated, depending on the outcome of the co-crafting process. Additional to the focus areas, the model also utilizes different meta-tools, in order to best obtain empirical data for accurate evaluation, analysis and co-creation. The philosophy behind this model was strongly influenced by the considerations found in the Hersey & Blanchard (1969) situational leadership propositions. As such, it provides both the member and organization with a systematic view of their individualized development pathway.