The Four MovementsFrom performance gap to practical action.

Establish the performance anchor

Many institutional improvement efforts begin with a requested solution. Leaders may ask for training, technology, a dashboard, restructuring, new policies, communication, or a reform plan.

Movement 1 pauses the solution conversation long enough to establish the performance anchor.

It asks what is happening now, what should be happening, who is affected, and what value is being lost or could be created. This gives the team a shared point of reference before it begins diagnosing causes or selecting interventions.

Without this anchor, improvement work can quickly become organized around activities rather than results.

Define the gap without deciding the cause

A useful performance gap describes the difference between current and required performance. It should be specific enough to guide inquiry, but not so narrow that it assumes the cause before the evidence has been examined.

The team should also identify what is known, what is assumed, and where evidence remains weak. Honest uncertainty is more useful than false precision.

Movement 1 establishes the boundary for the work. It helps the institution distinguish the performance issue that must be understood from the wider concerns that may be important but are not part of the immediate inquiry.

Core questions

• What is happening now, and what should be happening?
• What evidence shows the gap, and where is evidence still weak?
• Who is affected by the current result?
• What value is at stake for the institution and its stakeholders?
• What is inside the problem boundary, and what is outside it?
• What should the team avoid assuming too early?

What this movement produces

A strong Movement 1 leaves the institution with:

• A clear performance gap statement
• An honest view of available evidence and remaining evidence needs
• A shared understanding of why the gap matters
• A defined problem boundary
• Agreement on the next areas of inquiry

Keep the anchor visible

The performance gap statement becomes the anchor for the rest of the method. The team should return to it whenever the work begins drifting toward preferred solutions, broad organizational concerns, or activity without a clear performance purpose.

Move from the stated problem to operating reality

Movement 2 shifts the team from a stated problem to an evidence-based explanation of operating reality.

It examines how work actually happens, how decisions are made, what people are expected and enabled to do, and how leadership, governance, capability, incentives, data, workflow, and learning routines shape the result.

The purpose is not to study the entire institution. It is to see enough of the performance system to explain the current pattern and make better decisions.

Look beyond visible symptoms

The first explanation offered for a performance problem is often incomplete.

Weak performance may initially be described as a capability problem when people actually lack authority, tools, information, supervision, or time. A technology problem may prove to be a workflow or ownership problem. A communication problem may be rooted in incentives, leadership reinforcement, or unclear decision rights.

Movement 2 tests these assumptions against evidence.

Use the Seven Performance Pillars selectively

The Seven Performance Pillars help the team examine the connected conditions that may be shaping performance:

• Performance and Value
• Human Architecture and Incentives
• Workflow and Operating Processes
• Organizational Alignment and Operating Reality
• Capability and Competency
• Change Leadership and Learning
• Measurement, Feedback and Course Correction

Focus the inquiry

The goal is not to examine every pillar equally. The team begins with the performance gap and focuses on the pillars most likely to explain it.

The pillars remain relevant throughout the method. They help frame the inquiry in Movement 1, guide diagnosis in Movement 2, shape intervention requirements in Movement 3, and become performance and learning signals in Movement 4.

Follow the work as it actually happens

Formal policies and process maps describe how work is intended to happen. Performance is produced through the real workflow.

The team therefore looks for handoffs, approvals, delays, rework, workarounds, informal decisions, data gaps, conflicting expectations, and points where the formal process is regularly bypassed.

Evidence may come from:

• Operating data and system logs
• Process records and case files
• Observation and workflow walkthroughs
• Interviews and group discussions
• Decision logs and governance records
• Service standards and performance measures
• User or stakeholder feedback
• Job aids, tools, and enabling resources
• Meeting routines and examples of workarounds

Core questions

• How does the work actually happen now?
• Where does work slow down, stop, repeat, or leave the formal process?
• Who owns the result, the decisions, the data, and the handoffs?
• What incentives, expectations, or informal norms shape behavior?
• What capability is required within the real workflow?
• Which conditions are most responsible for the performance gap?

What this movement produces

Movement 2 should produce a focused explanation of the current performance pattern. The institution should understand:

• How the work actually happens
• Where performance slows, breaks, repeats, or depends on workarounds
• Which conditions are most responsible for the gap
• What evidence supports the diagnosis
• Which assumptions have been confirmed, revised, or rejected
• Which conditions must be addressed through intervention

Explain the pattern

The result is not simply a list of problems. It is an explanation of how connected conditions produce the current performance result.

Convert diagnosis into practical action

Movement 3 converts diagnosis into a coherent package of actions.

The intervention should address the conditions producing the performance gap, not simply respond to the first visible symptom or the most familiar solution.

A strong intervention package may combine changes to workflow, governance, decision rights, roles, capability, incentives, technology, data, leadership routines, job support, or measurement.

The right combination depends on the diagnosis.

Why co design matters

The people who own, use, govern, support, and experience the work should help shape the intervention.

Their involvement improves practical fit, reveals constraints early, and builds ownership for implementation. It also helps the team distinguish between a technically attractive solution and a change the institution can realistically absorb.

Co design does not mean that every stakeholder decides everything. It means that relevant knowledge, experience, authority, and implementation realities inform the design.

Build an intervention package, not a solution list

Possible intervention components may include:

• Workflow redesign and handoff clarification
• Decision rights, governance, ownership, and escalation routines
• Role expectations, incentives, manager reinforcement, and job support
• Capability development, practice, coaching, and enabling resources
• Data ownership, system integration, adoption support, and user feedback
• Performance signals, leadership review routines, and stakeholder engagement

Make the actions reinforce one another

These actions should reinforce one another. A new process may require changed roles, clearer authority, new capability, better data, and leadership review. Training alone will not correct a workflow, governance, or incentive problem.

Test feasibility and readiness

An intervention must fit the institution's operating reality. The team should consider:

• What the institution can absorb now
• What should happen first
• Which actions depend on other actions
• Who has the authority to make decisions
• Who will own implementation
• What resources and support are available
• What risks may prevent adoption or follow through
• Which elements can be tested before wider implementation

Learn through meaningful early tests

Early tests should be small enough to learn from, but meaningful enough to inform later decisions.

Core questions

• Which conditions matter most, and what action addresses each one?
• What must change in workflow, roles, governance, capability, data, or measurement?
• What can the institution realistically absorb now?
• What should happen first, and what depends on what?
• Who will own implementation and remove barriers?
• What risks could prevent adoption or follow through?

What this movement produces

A strong Movement 3 produces a feasible intervention package with:

• A clear connection between each action and a validated performance condition
• Named ownership and decision authority
• A realistic sequence based on dependencies and readiness
• Visible implementation and adoption risks
• Appropriate governance and leadership support
• Early tests that create useful evidence
• Performance and adoption signals that can be reviewed during implementation

Make the logic explicit

The intervention package should explain not only what will be done, but why each action is needed and how the combined changes are expected to improve performance.

Treat implementation as a source of evidence

Implementation creates new evidence.

It shows whether the intervention fits the workflow, whether people are using it, whether governance is functioning, whether barriers are being removed, and whether performance is beginning to change.

Movement 4 turns that evidence into a regular decision process rather than waiting for a final evaluation or report.

Learning is a decision routine

Collecting information is not the same as learning.

Learning happens when evidence changes a decision, an action, a resource, a sequence, or an assumption.

The institution therefore needs a practical review rhythm in which leaders and teams examine a focused set of signals, discuss what the evidence means, and decide what should happen next.

The routine should be light enough to use consistently and strong enough to support meaningful decisions.

Focus on the signals that matter

The signal set may include:

• Performance results
• Adoption quality
• Workflow fit
• Data quality and reliability
• Stakeholder or user experience
• Capability and confidence
• Barrier identification and resolution
• Leadership reinforcement
• Operating value

Measure enough to decide

The institution does not need to measure everything. It needs a small number of trusted signals that help leaders and teams decide whether to continue, adjust, expand, pause, or stop an intervention.

Core questions

• What evidence should leaders and teams review?
• What few signals show whether performance is changing?
• Are people using the intervention within the intended workflow?
• What is improving, what is not improving, and what is blocked?
• What decision or adjustment is needed now?
• Who owns follow through, and when will the result be reviewed again?

What this movement produces

The practical output is a small learning system consisting of:

• A regular review rhythm
• A focused set of performance and adoption signals
• Named owners for evidence, decisions, and follow through
• An agenda built around decisions rather than reporting
• A record of adjustments and course corrections
• Clear criteria for continuing, adapting, scaling, pausing, or stopping an intervention
• A scheduled point for reviewing whether the adjustment produced the intended result

Protect the performance purpose

This learning system helps the institution adapt while protecting the original performance purpose of the work.