"I continue to find your work inspiring, practical, and inevitably value-added wherever deployed, even when done by journeymen such as myself. Nothing can be done to straighten the crooked timber of government bureaucracy, but your style and substance give me hope, however delusional."
- Todd Sears
Some Testimonials
|
|
LTGEN (ret) Peter Leahy, former Chief of Armyvan Gelder & Monk's methods for dissecting and clarifying complex pieces of analysis or public policy are first class. Although I have always been an advocate of the Army retaining its tank capability and specifically pressed for the purchase of the Abrams tanks to replace the aging Leopards, when I needed to prepare a speech on the subject for the Defence College last year, Their report on the subject Why Tanks, Why Abrams? saved me a week's work. It is an excellent piece of work and crystal clear in its laying out of every aspect of the debate, for and against the decision.
Dr. Colette Thomas
|
Prof. Ross Babbage, Kokoda FoundationI have been familiar with van Gelder & Monk's methods since the founders set out to develop something innovative and practical along these lines a decade or so ago. It is very clear to me now that they are making a significant contribution to the improvement of analytical standards in the public policy arena, particularly among young professionals. van Gelder & Monk deserve the country's thanks for this.
Garry Pearson, CEO, Australian Dental Association Victoria Branchvan Gelder & Monk were highly successful in helping the ADAVB to clarify the director attributes and behaviours we agree are most conducive to effective deliberation. The complex factors which influence the decision making culture of an organisation can be daunting for external parties to grapple with, but with their customary clear thinking and analytical skill Tim and Paul ensured we had an honest and constructive look at what we actually do when we make decisions.
So often governance workshops talk about the requirements of directors, especially their roles and responsibilities, and fail to come to grips with the practicality of working together to make good decisions. Our facilitated discussion about what constitutes a good decision, in terms of both process and outcomes, was especially engaging. Their S.O.C.I.A.L. (Situation, Options, Considerations, Individual Judgment, Aggregation, Leading to Decision) model offered a helpful framework for considering how best to reshape our behaviours to achieve more effective deliberation at Board level, and we now expect that to flow on to our committees and support structures. Use of dialogue mapping in the workshop also helped our directors to recognise how easily they can be distracted from the purpose of discussion on an agenda item by tangential debates and personal perspectives. Their requirement that delegates “speak to the map” when offering ideas, questions, pros and cons, was an outstanding illustration of how to maintain focus, while capturing the diverse input of all contributors to the discussion, and ultimately aiding all participants to see the weight of argument supporting the preferred decision. This was one of our most engaging and meaningful director development activities, and we have done many over the years. Highly recommended for any board of directors. |
Bruce Page,
|