DIAGNOSTIC MODEL & ASSESSMENT TOOL MARCO, INC.

By Marco Cassone This document introduces the Cassone State & Action Diagnostic Model, developed

in conjunction with the State & Action Assessment Tool. This model/tool addresses eight primary sub-systems that comprise Marco, Inc., listed here in general order of priority: 1. Heart & Soul 2. Mind 3. Body 4. People 5. Education & Expression 6. Career 7. Home & Life 8. Finances & Oce

In developing this model/tool, the author has come to realize that Marco, Inc. has

traditionally run on a rather archaic model for daily operation -- that of more or less a never ending action item laundry list dictating where and how much energy should be directed in reaction to immediate and/or urgent needs of the day. The author has further noticed a consistent byproduct of this form of minimalist directional involvement: ambiguous goals and strategies, vague long term planning, poor time management, justication for multi-tasking or being late, and occasional overwhelm of the entire system. An immediate recommendation for extensive operational overhaul has been submitted to the general committee. Rather than applying the usual afore-mentioned action item laundry list approach in investigating these eight sub-systems, Cassone (2012) has developed a cross-dimensional means of assessing system eectiveness and performance. This approach is characterized by two dierent, yet complementary perspectives of analysis -- state and action. Eectiveness can be dened as the capability of producing a desired result. The denition of performance, however, is less succinct: the execution of an action (MermaidWebster online dictionary) as well as other reference to the manner in which a request, process, or operation is fullled. For the sake of this diagnostic model and assessment tool, the author chooses to use the terms mostly interchangeably: a sub-system that is found to be highly eective can at the same time be considered high in performance.

It is more important, however, to note that while eectiveness and performance are

traditionally measured by output, this model breaks them down into two distinct, co-existing realms: state and action. State refers to a mode or experience of being; that is, a general life condition, clarity of purpose, capacity for growth, and qualitative impression. Action on the other hand, refers to the capacity to demonstrate activity directed towards a desired end. The author found that a more robust understanding of performance comes from asking questions related to both being (perceived state) AND doing (capacity for action). As a visual representation of this model/tool, a simple graph will suce with a common x, y axis depicting of these two realms. Here it becomes important to keep in mind the function of the axis, the internal categories used for dierentiation, and the range covered by the axis. Our vertical y-axis is a continuum representing the state of a system component. For diagnostic purposes, the author has created eight internal categories for dierentiation of state: chaos, survival, control, concern, play, learning, service, and stewardship. There are many helpful ways to think of the range of this continuum: reactive to proactive, irresponsibility to responsibility; delusion to clarity, and ego-driven to value-driven. In the assessment tool itself, each sub-system component is rated individually on a 0-7 point scale describing its current condition. Borrowing from Maslows Hierarchy of Needs, lower scores indicate collapse, struggle, and limitation, with focus of attention aimed at selfpreservation. Higher scores transition from focus on individual survival to focus on system well-being, as depicted in categories from play and learning to service and stewardship. Our horizontal x-axis is a continuum representing the capacity for action of system components. Here the author similarly created eight subdivisions to help with identication: asleep, awake, ideas, talk, trial, practice, habit, and mastery. A similar 0-7 point scale was created for rating of each sub-system component. This continuum addresses more than observable skill level as categorized in trial, practice, and mastery; it also considers early stages and latent forms of activity, such as lack of awareness, ideas, and talk. A helpful way to think of the this continuum is the trajectory of the four stages of competence learning model: unconscious incompetence to conscious incompetence to conscious competence and nally arriving at unconscious competence. A similar perspective would be the stages of learning a language: incomprehension, perception (sensory), formation (meaning), production (mimicry), and nally generation (uency). Lower x-axis scores take a lot of mental energy and are not very productive; higher scores produce a lot and do so with ease.

The following is an example of the x,y axis diagnostic graph used throughout the

State & Action Assessment Tool, which shows the eight categories along each axis:
Stewardship

<------- Y Axis: Continuum of State ------->

reactive <----------------------------> proactive

irresponsibility <----------------> responsibility

delusion <-------------------------------> clarity

ego-driven <---------------------> value-driven

Service Learning Play Concern Control Survival Chaos

ea s

Ta lk

ic e

Tr ia

le e

ak

ab

Aw

As

ac t

Id

Pr

(For both axes, a 0-7 point rating scale enables x-y plotting of each sub-system component.)

<-------------- X-Axis: Continuum of Action ------------- > (Four stages of competency learning model) Unconscious Conscious Conscious Unconscious Incompetence Incompetence Competence Competence

Each general sub-system of Marco, Inc. was analyzed for components identiable as

states (such as accountability, self-condence, or motivation level), and for components identiable as actions (such as spiritual practice, physical exercise, or resume development). As these components were loosely paired, aggregated, and plotted for visual representation, a clear picture emerged depicting eective, high-performance sub-systems as well as those suering from entropy, dysfunction, or diminished current level of interest. The following pages portray two examples from our eight sub-system assessments, including component ratings, numeric plotting, and visual graph (one sub-system per page). These two components were presented to give a clear picture of the assessment in action.

as

te

ry

it

DIAGNOSTIC MODEL & ASSESSMENT TOOL: MARCO, INC.

HEART & SOUL
WHAT IS MY CURRENT STATE? Sense of balance 6 } 6.5 Monkey mind at ease 5 Solid foundation & momentum 5 } 5 Mentor connection 5 Comfortable w/ myself 6 } 5.5 Need for drama & exaggeration 5 Inspiration level 7 } 6 Ability to keep my mouth shut 5 Mission & vision 6 } 6.5 Resilience & sense of humor 7 Overall STATE 5.9 Overall Balance Spiritual Practice Sense of Self Inspiration Level Values In Life HOW STRONG IS MY ACTION? 5.5 { 6 Living awake & aware 5 Chanting & meditating 4 Reflection on root causes 5 Studying Buddhism 6 Claiming Marco-time 6 Telling the truth 7 Encouraging others 7 Supporting & coaching others 6 Living my values 7 Being a solution & valuing others Overall ACTION

4.5 {

6{

7{

6.5 { 5.9

HEART & SOUL CHART

Stewardship Service Learning Play Concern Control Survival Chaos

(STATE)

ep

ea s

Aw ak

Tr ia

tic

ry

it

H ab

As le

Pr

Overall Balance Sense of Self Values In Life

STATE + ACTION

Spiritual Practice Inspiration Level

as te

ac

Id

(ACTION)

Ta l

MIND
WHAT IS MY CURRENT STATE? Wisdom 6 Knowledge 5 My attitude 7 Motivation level 7 Mental capacity 5 Self-compromise 4 My annual, 5-yr, & 10-yr plans 2 Clarity on potential roadblocks 2 Sitting still vs workaholism 3 Incompletions taking energy 4
(STATE)

HOW STRONG IS MY ACTION? Overall Intelligence General Attitude Mental Clarity Planning & Big Rocks Capacity to Focus
(STATE)
(STATE)

} 5.5 }7 } 4.5 }2 } 3.5

(ACTION)

{ { { { {
(STATE)
(ACTION)

5 Pause before response 5 Decision making 6 Risk taking 7 Creating action lists 5 Taking time to write things down 5 Saying No thank you 3 Weekly time management 3 Asking the right questions 4 Doing one thing at a time 4 Prioritizing
(ACTION)

6.5

4 4.7

Overall STATE
(ACTION)

(ACTION)

4.5

(ACTION)

(ACTION)

(ACTION)

Overall ACTION

(STATE)

(STATE)

(STATE)

(STATE)

(STATE)

(ACTION)

MIND CHART
Stewardship Service Learning Play Concern Control Survival Chaos

(STATE)

ep

Aw ak

Tr ia

ea

tic

H ab

Ta l

As le

as te

ry

it

Pr

Overall Intelligence Mental Clarity Capacity to Focus

General Attitude Planning & Big Rocks STATE + ACTION

(ACTION)

ac

Id

FEEDBACK REPORT: MARCO, INC.

Several benecial perspectives emerged from this diagnostic model through its

development and implementation, the most important of which was an experiential, systemsbased understanding of eectiveness and performance. Each sub-system of Marco, Inc. has its own unique way of interacting with the larger external system(s) it plays a part in, depends on, or contributes to. Examples of these external systems are family, community, church, other organizations, place of employment, the environment, etc. Based on the specic dierentiation between state and action in the diagnostic model, an interesting pattern was revealed through the assessment. Low performance is strongly correlated with a collapse inward producing a sense of isolation and limitation. Lack of eectiveness is correlated with lack of capacity to focus on anything other than self and survival. Being and doing at this end of the spectrum is ego-based in nature, and growth is little more than using the past to avoid pain or seek immediate relief from a low life condition. Pondering the evolution from dependence through independence to interdependence, one observes a signicant transformation in how being and doing occur: collapsed inward focus on ego, self, and survival is replaced with expanded outward focus on interdependence within systems. Former what questions aimed at solving personal problems turn into how questions serving a greater cause. Here we see emerge a chicken-egg nature to the starting point of eectiveness, which occurs more like the byproduct of a dierent way of being and doing in the world than a variable than can be improved in isolation. Following below is a collection of diverse ways of looking at low, medium, and high performance: Low Performance <-------------- Medium Performance -------------> High Performance Isolation, separation, & competition <------------------------> Unity, connectedness, & synergy Dependence <------------------------ Independence ------------------------> Interdependence External locus of control (victimization) <------------> Internal locus of control (empowerment) Collapsed focus on limitation, self, & ends <--> Open focus on possibility, systems, & means Instability & contraction <-------- Stability & equilibrium -------> Transformation & expansion

Taking a look at the eight sub-systems that comprise Marco, Inc., there is an

abundance of positive feedback indicating strong performance. Sub-systems naturally higher in priority, like Heart & Soul, Mind, and People (relationships) generally receive more direct attention and are set up in service to and with greater interdependence on external systems. It will always be the case that some areas move to the front of lifes stove, unavoidably pushing others to cooler back burners. Consistent care on improving the nuts and bolts of existence has paid o, especially in easy-to-let-slide areas like integrity, accountability, positive attitude, clear communication, and treating everyone with respect and value. Nothing in the realm of relationships or intimacy is occurring broken or needing to be xed. There is a demonstrable benet that can and will come from choosing to bring excellence to areas disregarded in the last half-decade, especially career, life planning, and personal organization and nance. But the educational choices Im making, the new community Im creating, the new conversations Im engaged in, and the new care I have the benet of demonstrating are all indicative of incremental improvement in a way that will produce sustainable results. This author knew some TLC was sorely needed in a few areas. Prior to our new understanding of eectiveness viewed within a greater systems context, a few lower assessment scores would have simply merited a few extra to-do entries on the increasingly long and unruly action item laundry list, and with so much time and energy absorbed handling personal issues, little would remain for service, stewardship, or becoming important to anyone else other than the primary stockholder of Marco, Inc. One of the best realizations from this process has been clarity on the bankrupt reasoning that low performance thinking and solutioning can ever address problems of ineectiveness that are fundamentally endemic to the myopic, self-obsessed runaround of living and operating in survival mode. Additional attention and energy is always welcome anywhere in life, but much can be wasted if not accompanied by a constant pursuit of higher life condition (state) and greater mastery (action).