"Is sugar in everything?", my 7-year-old daughter asked at the breakfast table yesterday.
My husband, a high school Physics and Chemistry teacher, responded yes and then went on to explain that all food is derived from plants which make sugar from carbon dioxide and water. This sugar then forms chains that make up much of the plant material, which is then consumed and modified again in the bodies of animals. But if it’s got plant, then yes it’s got sugar.
Well, crap - right? Sugar is something we're supposed to "watch" and in many cases, abhor as parental figures responsible for the healthy development of our children. And now, it is in everything? Crap.
But, my point isn't sugar and chemical transformations.
It is that my daughter's question reminded me of having asked, "Is everything resistance?" when we first started our textbook topic presentations with Penny's introduction to resistance. Looking back on what I was feeling at that point in the semester, undoubtedly I asked that question with a cynical undertone. Crap - resistance is everywhere, our "resistance to resistance is futile" - Crap. Now, how is my practice supposed to progress or improve?
What a difference a few weeks makes...! Besides the value that Block provided in teaching us to recognize the different possible physical expressions of resistance, I can see now the value of resistance. It is a reflection of the emotional work that the client is doing. When expressed, it can reflect their effort and investment. But, even more so, it represents a real fear, worry or need that we as "helpers" can acknowledge, name and help the client process.
Yes, resistance can block and tackle us especially when our technical predilections lead us to naturally focus on the facts and figures instead of listening to the verbal cues and watching for nonverbal body language. It can also lead us to want to take over as doctor or as lead actor in the play. (Metaphors borrowed from Block & Schein.) But, instead, we are urged to practice a little resistance ourselves, and "resist" that opportunity to move "one-up". We want to stay in close, authentic relationship so that we can better understand their needs, fears and desires and ultimately help them to help themselves.
So, I'll just co-opt my husband's expression and embrace it: "If it's a client, it has resistance."
The "everything" expression that I didn't struggle with was, "Everything is an intervention." That Schein principle doesn't frustrate me because it gives me permission to be a participant in the process and to be in relationship with the client. In the interest of full disclosure, I have never had to competitively respond to a RFP for an organizational diagnosis. If I had, perhaps I would be just as cynical and even willing to argue that a consultant can come in, observe and leave again, for a fee of course.
But, really, the process consulting method has given me permission to be confident and comfortable with the idea that the "relationship" is a naturally occurring need for me as a consultant. In past consulting roles, I always hesitated to put myself out there until I felt on firm ground in my personal understanding of the client and now, I can say that is OK.
When I reflected on past missteps in the "Who's the Client?" exercise, I realized that my lack of relationship (in which my physical distance from Fairbanks AK was only half the problem) and understanding of the ultimate and unwitting clients was at the root of the discomfort I felt with the project. It is also undoubtedly the reason why I can be sure that my product is still sitting on the shelf of the organization for which it was developed.
As much as I know that the relationship is critical for me, I am also "hard-wired" to need tools and checklists. This semester with Schein & Block has provided critical support for this side of my brain too, in particular, via the Active Inquiry technique. The different phases of inquiry guide me to interact progressively to encourage the client's learning and adaptive response instead of to jump into the "I'll tell ya' the problem AND fix-it" mode. Since it is so difficult to use consistently, I have begun to practice the technique with family members. Since practice makes perfect, I hope to become proficient enough to use it as a tool when I return to work after graduation.
Sugar, resistance and intervention is everywhere and gratefully, my HR practice will never be the same!
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Performance Management as Dialogue
I read a newsletter article recently which described "being convicted" by a situation in which one experiences, reads or converses on a topic that makes them feel cross-examined, judged and sentenced. "Convicted" As in, wait - that just made me stop, think and reflect on who it is I am and what it is I do and say.
To be honest, I have felt "convicted" often before but never thought about the ability of this particular word to give expression to my feelings. In fact, I often feel "convicted" when talking to others about my choice to practice, study and LOVE the field of Human Resources. In case you haven't noticed, it is not everyone's favorite functional area!
With most of those who like to give me grief about working in HR, I just laugh along because I think that engaging them in a discussion about the people and processes that I have been able to marvel at and impact along the way would probably not be of much interest. But, sometimes, I feel sad and convicted by the perceptions and realities that plague the HR field with respect to the way we treat people or the way we choose to apply processes and policies to people without regard to their experiences and assumptions. And as I read Nancy Dixon's book, I initially felt this shame rising again. And not because she criticized the profession but because she talked about the term "human resource"! Can you believe it? ... because she just mentioned the term!
Actually, as I re-read the section on p. 29 that gave me pause, she does indeed criticize our language. The terms "human resource" and "employee" apply an instrumentality to people that allows us to separate them from their identities and in so doing, objectify them instead of being in relation with them. But, I also then found hope in her perspectives. Dialogue may be an answer to this objectification.
Dialogue forces the relationship to accompany the instrumentality that we necessarily experience in corporate life. In fact, as I reflect on the work that HR has been asked to impact in my experiences, relationship has been a key to success. Dialogue builds up the trust and maintains the equilibration that we are reminded is so important in the helping relationship. Dialogue is also powerful because, as Nancy reminds us, we all possess the skill (save perhaps the narcissist).
The topic of performance management and the negative press that it has been given as a corporate routine is one that has also left me feeling "convicted" before. Performance management is SO hated - perhaps even more so than the HR function itself! Unfortunately, not only does HR enforce the process, we usually have to train everyone on "how to do it better" - Yuck! But, as I read Schein's and Dixon's writings about deliberative feedback, dialogue and developmental talk, I got excited about the idea of applying process consulting skills and the dialogue habit to performance management.
Schein's principles for deliberate feedback in Chapter 7 were tactical and had been familiar from the performance management training programs that I have delivered in the past. What gave me pause were the other theories like the "dynamics of face-work". I recognize now that when a supervisor and subordinate are forced annually or more often to feedback in a corporate environment, the face-saving work necessarily complicates the supervisor's desire to be a helpful coach and perhaps even demands that the supervisor "take the stage". I also read Schein's Dialogue chapter with the manager-employee relationship on my mind. An employee is sometimes like the platypus and cannot be fit into our categories of A, B or C players. In performance management conversations, the manager and employee certainly come to the table "with different assumptions" and in these conversations, "mutual understanding is (always) an illusion". (p.202) Wouldn't it be valuable to encourage both to get in touch with their assumptions first and to use the PM processes to dialogue and to develop a common thinking process about the potential of performance. One of our employees' most routine complaints about the PM process was that they always felt as if it happened "to them". How might you be able to use a dialogue to "legitimize air time" for both parties to talk about expectations and accomplishments? More importantly, how do you help dialogue to become a corporate habit like performance management is?
And this is where I really shook off the "conviction" and felt hope in my old favorite, the paradox. Dixon suggested that one will have great difficulty habitualizing dialogue unless the organizational climate is open and participative. Yet, an organization is rarely "open" unless individuals are in relation with each other and the individual level is where this change must start. What better topic to dialogue about than the event that everyone loves to hate... performance management! I'll definately want to re-enact the Christmas Light capmfire for that event, lest I be convicted by everyone's evil looks!
To be honest, I have felt "convicted" often before but never thought about the ability of this particular word to give expression to my feelings. In fact, I often feel "convicted" when talking to others about my choice to practice, study and LOVE the field of Human Resources. In case you haven't noticed, it is not everyone's favorite functional area!
With most of those who like to give me grief about working in HR, I just laugh along because I think that engaging them in a discussion about the people and processes that I have been able to marvel at and impact along the way would probably not be of much interest. But, sometimes, I feel sad and convicted by the perceptions and realities that plague the HR field with respect to the way we treat people or the way we choose to apply processes and policies to people without regard to their experiences and assumptions. And as I read Nancy Dixon's book, I initially felt this shame rising again. And not because she criticized the profession but because she talked about the term "human resource"! Can you believe it? ... because she just mentioned the term!
Actually, as I re-read the section on p. 29 that gave me pause, she does indeed criticize our language. The terms "human resource" and "employee" apply an instrumentality to people that allows us to separate them from their identities and in so doing, objectify them instead of being in relation with them. But, I also then found hope in her perspectives. Dialogue may be an answer to this objectification.
Dialogue forces the relationship to accompany the instrumentality that we necessarily experience in corporate life. In fact, as I reflect on the work that HR has been asked to impact in my experiences, relationship has been a key to success. Dialogue builds up the trust and maintains the equilibration that we are reminded is so important in the helping relationship. Dialogue is also powerful because, as Nancy reminds us, we all possess the skill (save perhaps the narcissist).
The topic of performance management and the negative press that it has been given as a corporate routine is one that has also left me feeling "convicted" before. Performance management is SO hated - perhaps even more so than the HR function itself! Unfortunately, not only does HR enforce the process, we usually have to train everyone on "how to do it better" - Yuck! But, as I read Schein's and Dixon's writings about deliberative feedback, dialogue and developmental talk, I got excited about the idea of applying process consulting skills and the dialogue habit to performance management.
Schein's principles for deliberate feedback in Chapter 7 were tactical and had been familiar from the performance management training programs that I have delivered in the past. What gave me pause were the other theories like the "dynamics of face-work". I recognize now that when a supervisor and subordinate are forced annually or more often to feedback in a corporate environment, the face-saving work necessarily complicates the supervisor's desire to be a helpful coach and perhaps even demands that the supervisor "take the stage". I also read Schein's Dialogue chapter with the manager-employee relationship on my mind. An employee is sometimes like the platypus and cannot be fit into our categories of A, B or C players. In performance management conversations, the manager and employee certainly come to the table "with different assumptions" and in these conversations, "mutual understanding is (always) an illusion". (p.202) Wouldn't it be valuable to encourage both to get in touch with their assumptions first and to use the PM processes to dialogue and to develop a common thinking process about the potential of performance. One of our employees' most routine complaints about the PM process was that they always felt as if it happened "to them". How might you be able to use a dialogue to "legitimize air time" for both parties to talk about expectations and accomplishments? More importantly, how do you help dialogue to become a corporate habit like performance management is?
And this is where I really shook off the "conviction" and felt hope in my old favorite, the paradox. Dixon suggested that one will have great difficulty habitualizing dialogue unless the organizational climate is open and participative. Yet, an organization is rarely "open" unless individuals are in relation with each other and the individual level is where this change must start. What better topic to dialogue about than the event that everyone loves to hate... performance management! I'll definately want to re-enact the Christmas Light capmfire for that event, lest I be convicted by everyone's evil looks!
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Anything but simple and straightforward.
This is a mea culpa - I did not read the HBR case prior to Monday's class and so was a bit disoriented by the conversation and role play. I was grateful to be assigned a minor role - John Tucker SVP Marketing - at least for the purposes of the recontracting discussion but really eager to catch up on the case after I finished an exam in a different class on Wednesday.
HBR had me at "simple and straightforward"....
In a prior HR role for a company that grew significantly through acquisition, I spent a portion of 10 years working on due diligence reviews and then activities related to harmonization of benefit plans and human resource policies. Susan should have listened to her gut when it started to question whether it really could be as simple as it appeared. But she understood Mr. Kellogg to be a "forceful leader who could plow through anything and make it work." This was her first misstep - forceful leaders may be good for many things - a merger is not one of them. I found that you needed to put their force to work on the customer, the future and the business plan of the combined companies. They are welcome to issue initial platitudes about "rowing in one direction" but cut them off before they can spit out the words "a merger of equals." Get the forceful leaders as far away from the people in the boat as possible. (Disclaimer - I don't know if the commentators chosen by HBR provide similar or different insight in Part II - I am purposely waiting to read it until after I finish this post.)
I would also suggest that Susan and Statler Company should have recontracted as soon as they discovered the level of differences between the Kellogg and Champion policies. First as Block suggests, they've just discovered that the presenting problem is not the real problem and most importantly, it certainly cannot be addressed according to the terms that the client had set forth. I see that this "do over" is supported by Block in the steps he lays out for collecting the data on page 190. "Step 2: Deciding to Proceed" would have encouraged a review with Kellogg prior to the interviews to confirm that sufficient motivation exists to keep moving forward. In process consulting, the goal is action and not research. Research is only going to give Susan and Jim more of the same... force from the Kellogg team, indignation from Champion, and continually disparate policies and procedures.
But, this then presents the best takeaway from this case, at least for me. Kellogg clearly wanted a pair of hands. M&A work is often pair of hands work, especially for the HR team who are sometimes invited to participate only after the finance and corporate development teams have decided the deal is a "go". Can we still apply some of the principles of process consultation in our efforts?
I see the redefining of the presenting problem as a critical skill and the habit of breaking it apart into technical and managerial problems equally beneficial. It may be in this process where we can be of most help to our clients, even when we find ourselves in a pair of hands role.
There are certainly recommendations that can be made to address the technical problem of disparate policies and procedures. The trick for Susan and Kellogg-Champion will be with the managerial problem. The disparate cultures and managerial processes will still need to be addressed. As soon as Susan is able to call attention to that and to name the resistence on both sides of the fence, the whole lot of them can come to new and better terms. Susan and Statler also need to lead Mr. Kellogg and Mr. Carpenter to some soul-searching about the cultural aspects of merger. There are some critical principles of change management that would greatly benefit not just the teams at Kellogg-Champion but the leaders themselves. Only under those conditions could you let them back near the people in the boat.
I don't know if Susan will survive this step of the engagement but I'd have to be proud of her for trying.
HBR had me at "simple and straightforward"....
In a prior HR role for a company that grew significantly through acquisition, I spent a portion of 10 years working on due diligence reviews and then activities related to harmonization of benefit plans and human resource policies. Susan should have listened to her gut when it started to question whether it really could be as simple as it appeared. But she understood Mr. Kellogg to be a "forceful leader who could plow through anything and make it work." This was her first misstep - forceful leaders may be good for many things - a merger is not one of them. I found that you needed to put their force to work on the customer, the future and the business plan of the combined companies. They are welcome to issue initial platitudes about "rowing in one direction" but cut them off before they can spit out the words "a merger of equals." Get the forceful leaders as far away from the people in the boat as possible. (Disclaimer - I don't know if the commentators chosen by HBR provide similar or different insight in Part II - I am purposely waiting to read it until after I finish this post.)
I would also suggest that Susan and Statler Company should have recontracted as soon as they discovered the level of differences between the Kellogg and Champion policies. First as Block suggests, they've just discovered that the presenting problem is not the real problem and most importantly, it certainly cannot be addressed according to the terms that the client had set forth. I see that this "do over" is supported by Block in the steps he lays out for collecting the data on page 190. "Step 2: Deciding to Proceed" would have encouraged a review with Kellogg prior to the interviews to confirm that sufficient motivation exists to keep moving forward. In process consulting, the goal is action and not research. Research is only going to give Susan and Jim more of the same... force from the Kellogg team, indignation from Champion, and continually disparate policies and procedures.
But, this then presents the best takeaway from this case, at least for me. Kellogg clearly wanted a pair of hands. M&A work is often pair of hands work, especially for the HR team who are sometimes invited to participate only after the finance and corporate development teams have decided the deal is a "go". Can we still apply some of the principles of process consultation in our efforts?
I see the redefining of the presenting problem as a critical skill and the habit of breaking it apart into technical and managerial problems equally beneficial. It may be in this process where we can be of most help to our clients, even when we find ourselves in a pair of hands role.
There are certainly recommendations that can be made to address the technical problem of disparate policies and procedures. The trick for Susan and Kellogg-Champion will be with the managerial problem. The disparate cultures and managerial processes will still need to be addressed. As soon as Susan is able to call attention to that and to name the resistence on both sides of the fence, the whole lot of them can come to new and better terms. Susan and Statler also need to lead Mr. Kellogg and Mr. Carpenter to some soul-searching about the cultural aspects of merger. There are some critical principles of change management that would greatly benefit not just the teams at Kellogg-Champion but the leaders themselves. Only under those conditions could you let them back near the people in the boat.
I don't know if Susan will survive this step of the engagement but I'd have to be proud of her for trying.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Does Active Inquiry always work? Perhaps... so Go With the Flow!
Although not pointed at the experience that I reflected about on 9/24, I found reassurance in the additional discussion about Active Inquiry in Monday's class. I was definitely approaching that conversation in too formulaic a way. I was also trying to hurry the process and so I find Schein's reminders about timing on pp. 48-49 to be very helpful. Principal #7 which reminds us to wait until the client is accessible must apply to the emotional availability of the client as well. There is data in the emotion that the consultant can use but the client needs to process that same data or the goal to let them solve their own problem will be difficult to attain.
This leads back to Principle #6 and one of the other topics we debated on Monday - Go With the Flow. I heard Dr. Carter pose the question to us whether we felt that Block's approach was too linear to support a "go with the flow" principle. Most of us agreed but there was also discussion about how the linear, step by step guide was very helpful for us novice and not yet flawless consultants.
I also found plenty of opportunity for "flow" in the first several of Block's ground rules for consulting on pp. 67-68. Granted, this flow is couched in a list of RULES! I see suggestions and reminders for improving the dynamic (def: relating to energy or objects in motion) interaction between consultant and client:
Enter freely.
Ensure consideration from/for both sides - "skin in the game".
Don't ask for something that the other doesn't have to give.
You can't contract for a change in feelings, only for a change in behaviors.
and the best of all, cue the Rolling Stones...
You can't always get what you want!
As I prepare to meet our client for the first time, I'll be more than tempted to use multiple checklists and cheat sheets. I must also remember to go with the flow and to be authentic about my goals: to help, to practice and to learn.
This leads back to Principle #6 and one of the other topics we debated on Monday - Go With the Flow. I heard Dr. Carter pose the question to us whether we felt that Block's approach was too linear to support a "go with the flow" principle. Most of us agreed but there was also discussion about how the linear, step by step guide was very helpful for us novice and not yet flawless consultants.
I also found plenty of opportunity for "flow" in the first several of Block's ground rules for consulting on pp. 67-68. Granted, this flow is couched in a list of RULES! I see suggestions and reminders for improving the dynamic (def: relating to energy or objects in motion) interaction between consultant and client:
Enter freely.
Ensure consideration from/for both sides - "skin in the game".
Don't ask for something that the other doesn't have to give.
You can't contract for a change in feelings, only for a change in behaviors.
and the best of all, cue the Rolling Stones...
You can't always get what you want!
As I prepare to meet our client for the first time, I'll be more than tempted to use multiple checklists and cheat sheets. I must also remember to go with the flow and to be authentic about my goals: to help, to practice and to learn.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Active Inquiry - Does it always work?
The day following our last class I sat with my Dad in my kitchen and interviewed him for a project that I am working on for MGMT 682 - Staffing. For this job analysis, I needed to review with him a list of tasks, knowledges, skills and abilities that are required by an organization (for which he is Board Chairman), Open Arms Institute, for the role of Child Care Center Director. Knowing that there had been a recent high profile failure of a director in one of the centers, I was a bit nervous about the conversation and the project to say the least. Besides my anxiety, I could tell right away that my dad was struggling and pretty anxious. So, even putting the job analysis aside, it was hard not to go into the Exploratory Inquiry right way. This was also somewhat natural because we had dialogued about the issue several times in the past two weeks so I already knew a bit about the situation.
What do you do when a client is already emotional?
How do you engage in a pure inquiry first?
How do you move him or her off of the feelings and into the the exploration of reasons and actions?
If you are aware of the situation (as I was), how do you reframe the conversation into a new examination?
I think Schein gives us great and practical suggestions about these 3 phases of inquiry. I hope that at some point in my career, these questions will come more naturally and that I feel more practiced in the process.
What do you do when a client is already emotional?
How do you engage in a pure inquiry first?
How do you move him or her off of the feelings and into the the exploration of reasons and actions?
If you are aware of the situation (as I was), how do you reframe the conversation into a new examination?
I think Schein gives us great and practical suggestions about these 3 phases of inquiry. I hope that at some point in my career, these questions will come more naturally and that I feel more practiced in the process.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Leader as Process Consultant
I really appreciated the class discussion last night about the Preface to the Second Edition (p. xvii) in which Peter Block talks about the authentic consultant. He describes authenticity in consulting not as the oxymoron that some of us who have been jaded by interactions with the "Expert" consultant recognize, but as a competitive advantage if not also a high risk strategy. There was also discussion about Block's assertion that many of us do not even know how to be authentic anymore, and whether that is true for us as a professional culture.
This reminded me about one of the many favorite topics that I've studied so far in graduate school. For MGMT 641: Organizational Management, I researched Authentic Leadership and spent some time in Bill George's book True North which I highly recommend as a lighter, practitioner-oriented reading related to this topic of authenticity. Looking back over my notes from the presentation made in class that semester, I found our definition of authentic leadership. "An Authentic Leader is a person that lives a life of integrity, and who is hopeful, optimistic, resilient, transparent, moral and ethical. An Authentic Leader is future-oriented and makes the development of others a priority. She is honest in relationship with others and most importantly, honest and true to self." I think that these last two points dovetail nicely with Schein's expression of what successful process consultation looks like.
First, about making the development of others a priority, Schein's "PC Model" practices double-loop, or generative, learning, to ensure that the client learns to learn. From page 19 of Process Consultation Revisited, "The expert and doctor models fix the problem; the goal of PC is to increase the client system's capacity for learning so that it can in the future fix its own problems."
I see that the second point of our definition, about honesty in relationship and with self, reflects Schein's Principle #3: Access Your Ignorance. A consultant who feigns omniscience does a huge disservice to themselves and the client. Every one in every consulting relationship always knows that it is not possible to know every thing, right? But, unless that fact is admitted to evidence and acknowledged by both parties, a consultant cannot practice authenticity and cannot inspire the clients to place trust in them.
The footnote on page 19 about Heifetz's adaptive leadership theory, encouraged me to continue thinking about using the process consultation model as a model for leadership. Adapting Schein's first five principles with help from Block, I'd suggest the following as an additional map for authentic leaders:
#1 Leadership requires flexibility in relationships from one minute to the next but it must also always be about helping and loving.
#2 Leadership is about being present with your team, understanding their realities and looking for data in each interaction.
#3 Leaders must seek to understand "more" than what is presented or asked. They must be wise enough to ask for more information.
#4 Leaders should not be the only ones providing answers and innovations. They must motivate and influence their team to participate in the review and the change and the growth.
#5 For leaders to be most effective, they must hold the team accountable for their issues, processes and systems.
Besides adapting it as a tool for leadership behavior, I think this process consultation model provides great guidance for me in future employee relations work. I can work all day long, every day to solve technical issues but the only enduring assistance I can provide is to help the employee to fix the problem for herself.
This reminded me about one of the many favorite topics that I've studied so far in graduate school. For MGMT 641: Organizational Management, I researched Authentic Leadership and spent some time in Bill George's book True North which I highly recommend as a lighter, practitioner-oriented reading related to this topic of authenticity. Looking back over my notes from the presentation made in class that semester, I found our definition of authentic leadership. "An Authentic Leader is a person that lives a life of integrity, and who is hopeful, optimistic, resilient, transparent, moral and ethical. An Authentic Leader is future-oriented and makes the development of others a priority. She is honest in relationship with others and most importantly, honest and true to self." I think that these last two points dovetail nicely with Schein's expression of what successful process consultation looks like.
First, about making the development of others a priority, Schein's "PC Model" practices double-loop, or generative, learning, to ensure that the client learns to learn. From page 19 of Process Consultation Revisited, "The expert and doctor models fix the problem; the goal of PC is to increase the client system's capacity for learning so that it can in the future fix its own problems."
I see that the second point of our definition, about honesty in relationship and with self, reflects Schein's Principle #3: Access Your Ignorance. A consultant who feigns omniscience does a huge disservice to themselves and the client. Every one in every consulting relationship always knows that it is not possible to know every thing, right? But, unless that fact is admitted to evidence and acknowledged by both parties, a consultant cannot practice authenticity and cannot inspire the clients to place trust in them.
The footnote on page 19 about Heifetz's adaptive leadership theory, encouraged me to continue thinking about using the process consultation model as a model for leadership. Adapting Schein's first five principles with help from Block, I'd suggest the following as an additional map for authentic leaders:
#1 Leadership requires flexibility in relationships from one minute to the next but it must also always be about helping and loving.
#2 Leadership is about being present with your team, understanding their realities and looking for data in each interaction.
#3 Leaders must seek to understand "more" than what is presented or asked. They must be wise enough to ask for more information.
#4 Leaders should not be the only ones providing answers and innovations. They must motivate and influence their team to participate in the review and the change and the growth.
#5 For leaders to be most effective, they must hold the team accountable for their issues, processes and systems.
Besides adapting it as a tool for leadership behavior, I think this process consultation model provides great guidance for me in future employee relations work. I can work all day long, every day to solve technical issues but the only enduring assistance I can provide is to help the employee to fix the problem for herself.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Dusting off the Blog
Before diving into a reflective post on our readings, I must memorialize the summer of 2010. It has been fabulous! Anticipating the coming year of full-time graduate coursework and full-time employment following graduation in May 2011 (God willing), I aimed to take full advantage of our family's summer schedule after I studied for and passed the SPHR exam in June. Since my children are of elementary age and my husband teaches in high school, we were ALL OFF ALL SUMMER!
Even before school let out in June, my girls were practicing daily with our neighborhood swim league. The weekly meets were so fun and probably as much for us parents who like to socialize as for the kids who love to swim.
Our big vacation was a 2 1/2 week trip to Bali, Indonesia and Singapore. We survived the 23 hours worth of flying time each way by watching lots of in-flight movies (the girls watched How To Train Your Dragon no less than 5 times) and reveling at the cool Asian food that was served for airline meals. The landscape is beautifully tropical (as are the bugs) and seeing our 5th and 2nd graders experiencing such different cultures was priceless. The occasion for gathering were milestone birthdays being celebrated by my sister and husband who live in Singapore so we also had some neat time with family and friends who traveled there as well!
We ended the summer with a new addition to the family. Copper, a 9 week old beagle puppy, came to live with us, in honor of my daughter's 10th birthday. Ever since, we've been exhausted and reminded of just how tough and rewarding it is to raise an infant!
Although I tried and mostly succeeded in letting go of school and professional cares this summer, I did have some fateful interactions with "HR" over the summer. Highlights included a morning-long conversation with my sister's friend who is a Regional HR Director for Arnott's in AsiaPac . We shared strikingly similar tales of people process improvement projects and leadership struggles which underscored for me that the need for good strategic HR management is a global concern.
Poolside in Bali (tough life I know!), my Dad and I conferenced for part of another morning about his role as President of the Board of Directors for Open Arms Institute Inc. which is struggling with how to best fulfill its mission to plant Lutheran congregation by developing child care center. It was neat to be able to challenge my own father to step back from an intense and consuming process problem and to look at how the organization's mission and vision could re-focus and lead them to the right answers.
While in Singapore, I organized a lunch meeting with a former co-worker from the Houston office of IHS who now works in Singapore. While dining at the Raffles Hotel, she and I reminisced about some great and not so great times working together to provide HR support to the Energy segment. It was most fun though just to hear about her new challenges working as a an ex-pat for the company. This visit in particular made me really excited to go back into corporate HR work, if for no other reason but to be able to continue making great connections with HR colleagues worldwide. I hope that excitement burns until May when I have to go job hunting!
To top off the summer, a personal and professional highlight coincided in the form of a 2-day Appreciative Inquiry Summit at our newest elementary school, J. Blaine Blayton. My 5th grade daughter and I were among a handful of student and parent representatives invited to help the Principal and new staff create a vision for the school. It was so exciting to experience "live and in person" the large group intervention strategy that we spent time reading and practicing in ADLT 625 last Spring. All of the participants were energized by the positive change approach and as a parent, it was refreshing to see the staff "gel" through the inquiry process and adapt so well to the idea of dreaming and designing the "Blayton Bumblebees" future. I also had a big "a-ha" moment watching the leaders of the event (the facilitator and the Principal) try to stay on the positive track even as the ache to go "stressed and worried" took over when the sessions ended 6 days before the school was supposed to open its doors for the first time ever.
The summer of 2010 will be easy to remember via our travel photos and the growth of our new puppy. What I will also strive to recall is the true excitement I feel when thinking about using what I have learned during this academic and personal hiatus when I go back to work in Human Resources.
Cheers to a great 2010-2011 academic year!
Even before school let out in June, my girls were practicing daily with our neighborhood swim league. The weekly meets were so fun and probably as much for us parents who like to socialize as for the kids who love to swim.
Our big vacation was a 2 1/2 week trip to Bali, Indonesia and Singapore. We survived the 23 hours worth of flying time each way by watching lots of in-flight movies (the girls watched How To Train Your Dragon no less than 5 times) and reveling at the cool Asian food that was served for airline meals. The landscape is beautifully tropical (as are the bugs) and seeing our 5th and 2nd graders experiencing such different cultures was priceless. The occasion for gathering were milestone birthdays being celebrated by my sister and husband who live in Singapore so we also had some neat time with family and friends who traveled there as well!
We ended the summer with a new addition to the family. Copper, a 9 week old beagle puppy, came to live with us, in honor of my daughter's 10th birthday. Ever since, we've been exhausted and reminded of just how tough and rewarding it is to raise an infant!
Although I tried and mostly succeeded in letting go of school and professional cares this summer, I did have some fateful interactions with "HR" over the summer. Highlights included a morning-long conversation with my sister's friend who is a Regional HR Director for Arnott's in AsiaPac . We shared strikingly similar tales of people process improvement projects and leadership struggles which underscored for me that the need for good strategic HR management is a global concern.
Poolside in Bali (tough life I know!), my Dad and I conferenced for part of another morning about his role as President of the Board of Directors for Open Arms Institute Inc. which is struggling with how to best fulfill its mission to plant Lutheran congregation by developing child care center. It was neat to be able to challenge my own father to step back from an intense and consuming process problem and to look at how the organization's mission and vision could re-focus and lead them to the right answers.
While in Singapore, I organized a lunch meeting with a former co-worker from the Houston office of IHS who now works in Singapore. While dining at the Raffles Hotel, she and I reminisced about some great and not so great times working together to provide HR support to the Energy segment. It was most fun though just to hear about her new challenges working as a an ex-pat for the company. This visit in particular made me really excited to go back into corporate HR work, if for no other reason but to be able to continue making great connections with HR colleagues worldwide. I hope that excitement burns until May when I have to go job hunting!
To top off the summer, a personal and professional highlight coincided in the form of a 2-day Appreciative Inquiry Summit at our newest elementary school, J. Blaine Blayton. My 5th grade daughter and I were among a handful of student and parent representatives invited to help the Principal and new staff create a vision for the school. It was so exciting to experience "live and in person" the large group intervention strategy that we spent time reading and practicing in ADLT 625 last Spring. All of the participants were energized by the positive change approach and as a parent, it was refreshing to see the staff "gel" through the inquiry process and adapt so well to the idea of dreaming and designing the "Blayton Bumblebees" future. I also had a big "a-ha" moment watching the leaders of the event (the facilitator and the Principal) try to stay on the positive track even as the ache to go "stressed and worried" took over when the sessions ended 6 days before the school was supposed to open its doors for the first time ever.
The summer of 2010 will be easy to remember via our travel photos and the growth of our new puppy. What I will also strive to recall is the true excitement I feel when thinking about using what I have learned during this academic and personal hiatus when I go back to work in Human Resources.
Cheers to a great 2010-2011 academic year!
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Reflecting on the semester
“Memory, when duly impregnated with ascertained facts, is sometimes surprisingly fertile.” GEORGE ELIOT, Silas Marner
Through blog posts, readings, and reaction essays, this course has offered me many opportunities to think about the company in Colorado that I worked for as an HR manager and to reflect on the change efforts that I was involved in there. Since the beginning of this semester, I knew that I wanted to “check-in” with my former boss about the current state of those initiatives in order to make a more complete meaning of the models, concepts, theories and systems that we’ve explored in this class. The fact that I waited until the very end of the semester to seek him out implies that my sub-conscious might have known that my bright memory of fast, CEO-dictated, HR-orchestrated change would not remain unvarnished.
In fact, after only five minutes of personal “catching up”, this former boss referred to an effort which I had led to develop a set of global core competencies for the organization as not having yet really “gained traction.”
Pop! (That’s my bubble bursting….)
Motivated by that quick pin prick and the other updates he provided during our phone call, I’ve surveyed many of the semester’s readings again and found new clues and insights about what could have been done differently to have obtained a more positive result.
When I asked my former boss to say more about the failure of the core competency roll-out, he reflected that leaders had not been held accountable for participating in the processes or more importantly, according to Burke & Litwin’s causal model, for serving as role models of the key behaviors that were established. To say it in a different way, the leaders’ supportive words (which we had used as testimonials) were disconnected from their actions and this disconnect allowed the organization’s culture and climate to remain at odds with the strategy to incorporate the “non-negotiable” behaviors. He also shared that since the organizational pace remains at full throttle, the business requirements of the rapid mergers and acquisitions strategy have allowed all employees from leaders down to line managers to ignore the mandates and deadlines which were intended to help embed the practices into daily life. He shared that in retrospect, our mistake had been to rollout the models and accompanying tools and training and to trust too much that the organization would embrace them.
When I asked him about why he thought that our efforts at the time to encourage ownership by having the executives participate in creating the models didn’t work, he confided that in a recent leadership meeting, several looked as if they were seeing the competencies for the first time. When he reminded them of the development exercises that they were involved in, only a couple remembered being interviewed and none remembered much else about the 2-quarter long communication plan and world-wide training efforts. At this same meeting, one leader, who is well-known to me, apparently admitted getting the importance of the effort but felt that he did not know how to “just do it”. As it stands now, the recovery plan for competencies is to kick-off a six-week cycle of leadership training where executives are first trained and are then held responsible for training their direct reports and then the organization cascades the effort. Thinking about this plan since we hung up the phone, I worry that this approach is similar to what has been successful before but that it may not be powerful enough at this point. In fact, to finally move the culture, transformation is necessary and cascaded executive-led training seems only to be a new tactic.
Hungry for some good news, I asked him next what was “changing well” from his perspective. He shared that major progress was made on harmonizing the organization’s total rewards plans. As well, he said that organization-wide and matrix-level communications were better than ever before and that after three years, the “new” mission, vision and values have finally been fully adopted by the organization. This comment reminded me of the importance of shared values and the matrix structure from the chapter by Emery & Trist and specifically of their discussion that both can help an organization cope and even succeed in step 4 environments. In fact though, the authors comment that the adoption of shared values and a matrix really only help transform the turbulent field back to step 2 and step 3 where strategy and operations are again critical for the system to meet its still complex environmental challenges. (p.17)
Turbulent environments and matrix designs were also discussed in Chapter 9 where organizations as open system organisms were explored by Gareth Morgan. From his discussion, I gained a new appreciation for how important integrative skills like coordination, internal differentiation and conflict resolution are for organizations in complex and unstable situations. As an organism/organization reacts to and takes inputs from its environment, its sub-processes must be enabled and its sub-teams willing to co-create the future and to become new together. If I had better understood this ecological view of the organization and also the social constructionism theory that undergirds the large group interventions at the time, I certainly would have pushed less for the results orientation competency and more for a focus on collaboration and the processes of working with teams and partners.
Another “world view” that was called into question by this conversation with Colorado was my predisposition to accelerating change. I recognize now that this was a behavioral adaptation required by that organization and not fully credible based on theory or best practice. I now value Piderit’s argument from Chapter 26 that using time to foster ambivalence can yield positive effects. Referencing Pratt and Barnett, Piderit suggested that ambivalence is needed “to stimulate unlearning” and to “motivate new action rather than the continuation of old routines”. (p. 430) Looking back, I see that we did not allow enough time for the organization to be ambivalent or to then unlearn their bias that the M&A climate necessitated constant attention whereas performance management only required action twice a year.
Reviewing Chapter 29 and the discussion by Brown and Starkey about the learning organization, reminded of a leadership change in the organization that I had heard about via the grapevine: the Sr. Director of Training and Development had been let go and her responsibilities had been assumed by a Sr. Director of HR Special Projects. At the time, this staff change was viewed skeptically by the staff since the CEO had conspicuously shared one day that he would spend the organization’s last dollar on training and development. What to make of that disconnect? I realize that this organization is simply not at all a learning organization in the habit of reflecting on itself, its identity, or its future. It is not fair to say that no mental models exist though; in fact, the existing mental model is rapid and constant change.
The last topic that I discussed with my former boss was the organization’s philosophy about integration of acquisitions. At the time that I left, there was heartburn beyond imagination during every Stop-Go meeting on a potential target when discussion centered on whether we would integrate the business or allow it to stand-alone. I fully expected to hear that the philosophy had shifted from “always integrate” to a prevalence of stand-alone units. In fact, what I heard was more comforting. The goal is still to integrate and harmonize policies and practices but the calendar is set after consideration is given to how much stress and change the incoming company can endure over what time frame. Size and culture is taken into account; for instance, the 10+ person family business needs more time to integrate into a 4000+ person organization. I really liked hearing this because it suggests that the organization recognizes that not only does the magnitude of change and the end results matter but that the approach is also important. Integration for an open complex system is about becoming something new together.
In reflecting and reading since the phone call last week, I’ve thought about what I would do or say or try to influence if I went back into the organization now. Remembering now that most planned changes were mechanical and hyper-focused (and apparently not always successful ) but that the CEO was equally curious, approachable and worldly, I would try to introduce the concept of large-group interventions and the idea of searching for higher, common ground to him. I believe the idea of appreciating the past, acknowledging the present and co-creating the future would resonate with the newly acquired businesses as well as with the legacy employees who also require attention in such a complex and fluid environment. To identify and appreciate everyone’s differences and use those to build a new future together could be quite powerful for this organization.
When I named my blog at the beginning of the semester, I had no idea that I’d walk away from this course with a repertoire for actually “integrating human resources”. As I shared in my very first post, integrative thinking is about refusing to choose between opposing ideas and instead working together to create a new and better model. The theories, systems and large group change strategies that we’ve explored in this course have provided new tools that I can use to help organizations improve their processes, people, teams and their futures.
Through blog posts, readings, and reaction essays, this course has offered me many opportunities to think about the company in Colorado that I worked for as an HR manager and to reflect on the change efforts that I was involved in there. Since the beginning of this semester, I knew that I wanted to “check-in” with my former boss about the current state of those initiatives in order to make a more complete meaning of the models, concepts, theories and systems that we’ve explored in this class. The fact that I waited until the very end of the semester to seek him out implies that my sub-conscious might have known that my bright memory of fast, CEO-dictated, HR-orchestrated change would not remain unvarnished.
In fact, after only five minutes of personal “catching up”, this former boss referred to an effort which I had led to develop a set of global core competencies for the organization as not having yet really “gained traction.”
Pop! (That’s my bubble bursting….)
Motivated by that quick pin prick and the other updates he provided during our phone call, I’ve surveyed many of the semester’s readings again and found new clues and insights about what could have been done differently to have obtained a more positive result.
When I asked my former boss to say more about the failure of the core competency roll-out, he reflected that leaders had not been held accountable for participating in the processes or more importantly, according to Burke & Litwin’s causal model, for serving as role models of the key behaviors that were established. To say it in a different way, the leaders’ supportive words (which we had used as testimonials) were disconnected from their actions and this disconnect allowed the organization’s culture and climate to remain at odds with the strategy to incorporate the “non-negotiable” behaviors. He also shared that since the organizational pace remains at full throttle, the business requirements of the rapid mergers and acquisitions strategy have allowed all employees from leaders down to line managers to ignore the mandates and deadlines which were intended to help embed the practices into daily life. He shared that in retrospect, our mistake had been to rollout the models and accompanying tools and training and to trust too much that the organization would embrace them.
When I asked him about why he thought that our efforts at the time to encourage ownership by having the executives participate in creating the models didn’t work, he confided that in a recent leadership meeting, several looked as if they were seeing the competencies for the first time. When he reminded them of the development exercises that they were involved in, only a couple remembered being interviewed and none remembered much else about the 2-quarter long communication plan and world-wide training efforts. At this same meeting, one leader, who is well-known to me, apparently admitted getting the importance of the effort but felt that he did not know how to “just do it”. As it stands now, the recovery plan for competencies is to kick-off a six-week cycle of leadership training where executives are first trained and are then held responsible for training their direct reports and then the organization cascades the effort. Thinking about this plan since we hung up the phone, I worry that this approach is similar to what has been successful before but that it may not be powerful enough at this point. In fact, to finally move the culture, transformation is necessary and cascaded executive-led training seems only to be a new tactic.
Hungry for some good news, I asked him next what was “changing well” from his perspective. He shared that major progress was made on harmonizing the organization’s total rewards plans. As well, he said that organization-wide and matrix-level communications were better than ever before and that after three years, the “new” mission, vision and values have finally been fully adopted by the organization. This comment reminded me of the importance of shared values and the matrix structure from the chapter by Emery & Trist and specifically of their discussion that both can help an organization cope and even succeed in step 4 environments. In fact though, the authors comment that the adoption of shared values and a matrix really only help transform the turbulent field back to step 2 and step 3 where strategy and operations are again critical for the system to meet its still complex environmental challenges. (p.17)
Turbulent environments and matrix designs were also discussed in Chapter 9 where organizations as open system organisms were explored by Gareth Morgan. From his discussion, I gained a new appreciation for how important integrative skills like coordination, internal differentiation and conflict resolution are for organizations in complex and unstable situations. As an organism/organization reacts to and takes inputs from its environment, its sub-processes must be enabled and its sub-teams willing to co-create the future and to become new together. If I had better understood this ecological view of the organization and also the social constructionism theory that undergirds the large group interventions at the time, I certainly would have pushed less for the results orientation competency and more for a focus on collaboration and the processes of working with teams and partners.
Another “world view” that was called into question by this conversation with Colorado was my predisposition to accelerating change. I recognize now that this was a behavioral adaptation required by that organization and not fully credible based on theory or best practice. I now value Piderit’s argument from Chapter 26 that using time to foster ambivalence can yield positive effects. Referencing Pratt and Barnett, Piderit suggested that ambivalence is needed “to stimulate unlearning” and to “motivate new action rather than the continuation of old routines”. (p. 430) Looking back, I see that we did not allow enough time for the organization to be ambivalent or to then unlearn their bias that the M&A climate necessitated constant attention whereas performance management only required action twice a year.
Reviewing Chapter 29 and the discussion by Brown and Starkey about the learning organization, reminded of a leadership change in the organization that I had heard about via the grapevine: the Sr. Director of Training and Development had been let go and her responsibilities had been assumed by a Sr. Director of HR Special Projects. At the time, this staff change was viewed skeptically by the staff since the CEO had conspicuously shared one day that he would spend the organization’s last dollar on training and development. What to make of that disconnect? I realize that this organization is simply not at all a learning organization in the habit of reflecting on itself, its identity, or its future. It is not fair to say that no mental models exist though; in fact, the existing mental model is rapid and constant change.
The last topic that I discussed with my former boss was the organization’s philosophy about integration of acquisitions. At the time that I left, there was heartburn beyond imagination during every Stop-Go meeting on a potential target when discussion centered on whether we would integrate the business or allow it to stand-alone. I fully expected to hear that the philosophy had shifted from “always integrate” to a prevalence of stand-alone units. In fact, what I heard was more comforting. The goal is still to integrate and harmonize policies and practices but the calendar is set after consideration is given to how much stress and change the incoming company can endure over what time frame. Size and culture is taken into account; for instance, the 10+ person family business needs more time to integrate into a 4000+ person organization. I really liked hearing this because it suggests that the organization recognizes that not only does the magnitude of change and the end results matter but that the approach is also important. Integration for an open complex system is about becoming something new together.
In reflecting and reading since the phone call last week, I’ve thought about what I would do or say or try to influence if I went back into the organization now. Remembering now that most planned changes were mechanical and hyper-focused (and apparently not always successful ) but that the CEO was equally curious, approachable and worldly, I would try to introduce the concept of large-group interventions and the idea of searching for higher, common ground to him. I believe the idea of appreciating the past, acknowledging the present and co-creating the future would resonate with the newly acquired businesses as well as with the legacy employees who also require attention in such a complex and fluid environment. To identify and appreciate everyone’s differences and use those to build a new future together could be quite powerful for this organization.
When I named my blog at the beginning of the semester, I had no idea that I’d walk away from this course with a repertoire for actually “integrating human resources”. As I shared in my very first post, integrative thinking is about refusing to choose between opposing ideas and instead working together to create a new and better model. The theories, systems and large group change strategies that we’ve explored in this course have provided new tools that I can use to help organizations improve their processes, people, teams and their futures.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Appreciating graduate studies
We value graduate studies because we gain knowledge through coursework in particular fields of study. We also value graduate studies because we learn how to learn and we are transformed by that learning in order to change the world around us. I also realize that my graduate studies are having a valuable impact on my family and specifically, my daughters. When composing a scholarship application recently, I had the chance to reflect more on this idea. What follows is an excerpt from that application:
Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.
Proverbs 22:6
During my childhood, both my father and mother returned to school for graduate studies in Theology and Nursing, respectively. My memories of their academic experiences are surely selective because I recall none of the stress that was undoubtedly produced by their efforts to balance parenthood, full-time work in their professional fields, and doctoral and master’s level studies.
I do recall accompanying my mother on the MARTA bus to downtown Atlanta to attend a class with her one day. (Perhaps it was a teacher workday at my school but not a day off from her class.) She made the day all about an adventure, packing us a lunch and a “do-it” bag to keep me quiet during the professor’s lecture. I remember being wide-eyed at the huge university building and classrooms and very keen about the grown-ups who were also in school just like my mom. This particular experience, as well as the distinct memories of my parent’s graduation ceremonies, were formative for me and I pondered them specifically when deciding to apply to graduate school at VCU.
In addition to seeking an academic credential in business and human resources to supplement my professional experience, I desired the curriculum at VCU because I knew it would provide a witness to my own two daughters about the value of higher education. During the course of my graduate studies, my daughters will see me pack many a school night “dinner” and make many a trek from our home in Williamsburg to Richmond (thankfully not via public transportation). I don’t know if they will ever attend a class with me but they will certainly hear about the colleagues and professors I meet, the endless journal articles to read, and each next challenging project to complete.
As I blocked the memories of stress and filtered through the value of perseverance from my parents’ experience in graduate school, I hope that my daughters will carry forth the value of lifelong learning from my VCU experience.
Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.
Proverbs 22:6
During my childhood, both my father and mother returned to school for graduate studies in Theology and Nursing, respectively. My memories of their academic experiences are surely selective because I recall none of the stress that was undoubtedly produced by their efforts to balance parenthood, full-time work in their professional fields, and doctoral and master’s level studies.
I do recall accompanying my mother on the MARTA bus to downtown Atlanta to attend a class with her one day. (Perhaps it was a teacher workday at my school but not a day off from her class.) She made the day all about an adventure, packing us a lunch and a “do-it” bag to keep me quiet during the professor’s lecture. I remember being wide-eyed at the huge university building and classrooms and very keen about the grown-ups who were also in school just like my mom. This particular experience, as well as the distinct memories of my parent’s graduation ceremonies, were formative for me and I pondered them specifically when deciding to apply to graduate school at VCU.
In addition to seeking an academic credential in business and human resources to supplement my professional experience, I desired the curriculum at VCU because I knew it would provide a witness to my own two daughters about the value of higher education. During the course of my graduate studies, my daughters will see me pack many a school night “dinner” and make many a trek from our home in Williamsburg to Richmond (thankfully not via public transportation). I don’t know if they will ever attend a class with me but they will certainly hear about the colleagues and professors I meet, the endless journal articles to read, and each next challenging project to complete.
As I blocked the memories of stress and filtered through the value of perseverance from my parents’ experience in graduate school, I hope that my daughters will carry forth the value of lifelong learning from my VCU experience.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Common Ground
I love this concept of common ground!
It seems to be at the heart of the Future Search method and it should be at the forefront of our minds when trying to increase the likelihood of successful change. People usually enjoy (and I mean enjoy not just tolerate) more what they create themselves or at least what they help to create. Large group interventions like Future Search allow people to co-define a "common ground" or co-imagine the future state and through this action, assume responsibility for the success of the effort. The "prouds and sorries" has to be especially powerful for the same reason, in that they allow an opportunity for groups and teams to admit that they could have done something different or better - there not many opportunities for this in work-day America!
But is it singularly true that you most enjoy those things that you create yourself?
Perhaps, as much appreciation can come from knowing that the "product" represents the efforts of another human being. For example, I enjoyed the lasagne my dad made the other night much more than I ever enjoy the lasagnes that I make myself. And I don't always think that what my daughters envision as their "perfect birthday party" is practical but I have to appreciate that they have their future in mind! And I should really take into account what they desire when I try to celebrate their life.
That is common ground ... to understand that your idea for change and the future is not always the perfect product but that perfection can come from sharing your ideas and ideals with others and from listening to them.
It seems to be at the heart of the Future Search method and it should be at the forefront of our minds when trying to increase the likelihood of successful change. People usually enjoy (and I mean enjoy not just tolerate) more what they create themselves or at least what they help to create. Large group interventions like Future Search allow people to co-define a "common ground" or co-imagine the future state and through this action, assume responsibility for the success of the effort. The "prouds and sorries" has to be especially powerful for the same reason, in that they allow an opportunity for groups and teams to admit that they could have done something different or better - there not many opportunities for this in work-day America!
But is it singularly true that you most enjoy those things that you create yourself?
Perhaps, as much appreciation can come from knowing that the "product" represents the efforts of another human being. For example, I enjoyed the lasagne my dad made the other night much more than I ever enjoy the lasagnes that I make myself. And I don't always think that what my daughters envision as their "perfect birthday party" is practical but I have to appreciate that they have their future in mind! And I should really take into account what they desire when I try to celebrate their life.
That is common ground ... to understand that your idea for change and the future is not always the perfect product but that perfection can come from sharing your ideas and ideals with others and from listening to them.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Tomatoes...
Intelligence is... knowing that a tomato is actually a fruit.
Wisdom is ... knowing better than to put it in a fruit salad.
(Source unknown)
And more on this later!
Wisdom is ... knowing better than to put it in a fruit salad.
(Source unknown)
And more on this later!
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Still thinking about diversity...
The day following our Open Space conference on diversity, I wrote a letter to the School Board encouraging them not to underestimate the importance of diversity in our local schools. Here is an excerpt:
"I wish to express compassion for the families and neighbors who fear the changes that must occur as redistricting decisions are made. However, I implore you to make these decisions with the best interest of our entire community in mind, not just those who speak the loudest or threaten the most.
To quote the management scholar Peter Drucker, “Efficiency is doing things right. Effectiveness is doing the right things.” Many people clearly feel that “doing things right” means ensuring that children attend school closest to their home. This may indeed be efficient but I believe that as leaders in the community, you must balance several criteria to ensure that our schools effectively serve all of our children.
Business organizations now know that diversity of background, culture, and thought provide real advantage in process and outcome. The same is true of educational organizations. Please do not allow certain schools and neighborhoods to forget the advantage of exposing children to the true diversity of our community."
Personally, I see that many venues like neighborhoods and churches tend naturally to be segregated and it seems our schools might be close behind if leaders and organizations do not pay enough attention to tenaciously creating diverse learning communities. I'm not very familiar with the individuation concept but when it was mentioned in the debrief, I thought to myself that I want my children to develop their sense of "self as different" from within a community that allows them to see the incredible value of unique backgrounds and beliefs.
And so Open Space was important for me because it motivated my voice to my community leaders and it has kept me thinking about diversity more purposefully than I had in a long time. I see using the ideas behind Open Space in the future to stimulate reflection and the "habit of being present" in a concept that might not reflected on enough otherwise.
As an aside, for my conference mates, according to a Pew Research Center study of 50 million millenials age 18 and older, 38 percent have tattoos as compared to 32 percent among Gen Xers and 15 percent of boomers. So, the generation gap may not be as wide as we all think after all !
"I wish to express compassion for the families and neighbors who fear the changes that must occur as redistricting decisions are made. However, I implore you to make these decisions with the best interest of our entire community in mind, not just those who speak the loudest or threaten the most.
To quote the management scholar Peter Drucker, “Efficiency is doing things right. Effectiveness is doing the right things.” Many people clearly feel that “doing things right” means ensuring that children attend school closest to their home. This may indeed be efficient but I believe that as leaders in the community, you must balance several criteria to ensure that our schools effectively serve all of our children.
Business organizations now know that diversity of background, culture, and thought provide real advantage in process and outcome. The same is true of educational organizations. Please do not allow certain schools and neighborhoods to forget the advantage of exposing children to the true diversity of our community."
Personally, I see that many venues like neighborhoods and churches tend naturally to be segregated and it seems our schools might be close behind if leaders and organizations do not pay enough attention to tenaciously creating diverse learning communities. I'm not very familiar with the individuation concept but when it was mentioned in the debrief, I thought to myself that I want my children to develop their sense of "self as different" from within a community that allows them to see the incredible value of unique backgrounds and beliefs.
And so Open Space was important for me because it motivated my voice to my community leaders and it has kept me thinking about diversity more purposefully than I had in a long time. I see using the ideas behind Open Space in the future to stimulate reflection and the "habit of being present" in a concept that might not reflected on enough otherwise.
As an aside, for my conference mates, according to a Pew Research Center study of 50 million millenials age 18 and older, 38 percent have tattoos as compared to 32 percent among Gen Xers and 15 percent of boomers. So, the generation gap may not be as wide as we all think after all !
Sunday, February 21, 2010
The Promised Land
I've thought a lot about change since the beginning of this course, and since our conversation with Tom last Wednesday, I've added the topic of values-based leadership to my musings. My path wanders in different directions by memories of work experiences at my former employer, or encounters with the topics in conversations or readings.
This morning I had the chance to consider again the "40 years in the wilderness" metaphor that Tom used to describe the stage that his company is hopefully exiting. Specifically, my ears perked up in church when my pastor mentioned something to the effect of the Israelites' "faith that God would tell them when they got there", i.e. to the Promised Land. To need someone else to literally tell you when you've "arrived" or achieved change is certainly a different perspective, especially as we think about planned organizational change and the massive energy that is (in advance) poured into envisioning and describing what the change will look like, or how the system will be in the future.
When I was project leader for the development of a global competency framework at my last employer, I was asked by our external consultant to create a vision of the experience enabled by the new system. I cannot even describe how badly I did on that assignment! But I think I was mostly skeptical because the result belonged to the organization and not just to one person. I am equally skeptical of any leader who sees his/her role of visionary as an individual. Absolutely, many leaders have guided their organizations to success by providing a vision that becomes a source of competitive advantage. But as was discussed in Burke and Litwin's chapter on Causal Models, the leader's vision is often directly enabled by the external environment. Additionally, the leader must be responsive to and integrally involved in defining how the mission, culture and organizational behaviors are aligned to effect that vision or change.
I felt some sympathy for Tom when he described the leader that wanted to change the world. It is indeed visionary. But will this leader work with his team to determine exactly what that looks like and how to get the whole system there in one (profitable) piece? Or will he just tell them when they get there?
Another point made in Wednesday's class which has stayed with me was the amount of time dedicated to the effort to get the leadership team on board with values-based leadership. I recall that it was two years which seems long to me. I have to admit a personal bias for quick deadlines and rapidity in change efforts, but why in this case was that much time allotted or why did it take so long?
Looking for help in our readings on the pace of change, I've spent time in Chapter 25, The Recipients of Change by Todd D. Jick. He describes the evolution of change reactions and the need for people to proceed through stages, which "occurs over time and essentially, cannot be accelerated." He gives particular heed to allowing people sufficient time in the "acknowledgement" stage or in the "ending phase" which provides the chance to let go of the old and to confront the loss. Following that is a "neutral zone", also described as a wilderness (ahh, full circle for the Israelites and Tom's company!), where one is adrift yet also mustering energy for moving on. Jick cautions that many organizations push people into new systems and processes without allowing sufficient time in the wilderness. But how much is right - 40 years? 2 years? I understand why people resist and I agree with later readings that the resistance is sometimes helpful (chapter 26). But how much time does the organization allow the individual? How does it engage those that can move faster than others? What happens when multiple change efforts are in play but are paced differently?
On a personal note, I know that the rapid organizational pace was a huge part of why I enjoyed my last HR job so much. For example, the global competency project was allowed 10 months, from conceptualization to development to worldwide training to implementation. We were exhausted at the end but happy with the result. For the future, I wonder how to go about finding an organization that moves fast and with integrity. And if I don't find an organization that moves as quick as I do, how can I learn to best serve that organization?
This morning I had the chance to consider again the "40 years in the wilderness" metaphor that Tom used to describe the stage that his company is hopefully exiting. Specifically, my ears perked up in church when my pastor mentioned something to the effect of the Israelites' "faith that God would tell them when they got there", i.e. to the Promised Land. To need someone else to literally tell you when you've "arrived" or achieved change is certainly a different perspective, especially as we think about planned organizational change and the massive energy that is (in advance) poured into envisioning and describing what the change will look like, or how the system will be in the future.
When I was project leader for the development of a global competency framework at my last employer, I was asked by our external consultant to create a vision of the experience enabled by the new system. I cannot even describe how badly I did on that assignment! But I think I was mostly skeptical because the result belonged to the organization and not just to one person. I am equally skeptical of any leader who sees his/her role of visionary as an individual. Absolutely, many leaders have guided their organizations to success by providing a vision that becomes a source of competitive advantage. But as was discussed in Burke and Litwin's chapter on Causal Models, the leader's vision is often directly enabled by the external environment. Additionally, the leader must be responsive to and integrally involved in defining how the mission, culture and organizational behaviors are aligned to effect that vision or change.
I felt some sympathy for Tom when he described the leader that wanted to change the world. It is indeed visionary. But will this leader work with his team to determine exactly what that looks like and how to get the whole system there in one (profitable) piece? Or will he just tell them when they get there?
Another point made in Wednesday's class which has stayed with me was the amount of time dedicated to the effort to get the leadership team on board with values-based leadership. I recall that it was two years which seems long to me. I have to admit a personal bias for quick deadlines and rapidity in change efforts, but why in this case was that much time allotted or why did it take so long?
Looking for help in our readings on the pace of change, I've spent time in Chapter 25, The Recipients of Change by Todd D. Jick. He describes the evolution of change reactions and the need for people to proceed through stages, which "occurs over time and essentially, cannot be accelerated." He gives particular heed to allowing people sufficient time in the "acknowledgement" stage or in the "ending phase" which provides the chance to let go of the old and to confront the loss. Following that is a "neutral zone", also described as a wilderness (ahh, full circle for the Israelites and Tom's company!), where one is adrift yet also mustering energy for moving on. Jick cautions that many organizations push people into new systems and processes without allowing sufficient time in the wilderness. But how much is right - 40 years? 2 years? I understand why people resist and I agree with later readings that the resistance is sometimes helpful (chapter 26). But how much time does the organization allow the individual? How does it engage those that can move faster than others? What happens when multiple change efforts are in play but are paced differently?
On a personal note, I know that the rapid organizational pace was a huge part of why I enjoyed my last HR job so much. For example, the global competency project was allowed 10 months, from conceptualization to development to worldwide training to implementation. We were exhausted at the end but happy with the result. For the future, I wonder how to go about finding an organization that moves fast and with integrity. And if I don't find an organization that moves as quick as I do, how can I learn to best serve that organization?
Monday, February 15, 2010
The paradox... it's everywhere!
I am not sure if my eyes and ears are particularly receptive to the term "paradox" right not and even if so, why... but, I am reading and hearing of paradoxes everywhere!
Particularly, this is the paradox described on Wikipedia as the dialethea, wherein a statement is both true and false at the same time in the same sense. Or to express my conceptualization of the paradox, where a person, place or object exists in contradictory states at the same time. I'll give you some examples of the paradoxes that I've been "run over" with lately.
One.
Although there are likely many "Obama paradoxes", the one I read about most recently was how Obama was elected by a mass who saw him as ultimately accessible and representative of their own personal situation. However, as he has assumed the presidency, this accessibility is cut off at the knees by none other than the security detail and the image that Obama must assume as the "leader of the free world".
Two.
From The Power of Appreciative Inquiry by Whitney & Bloom, principle #7, The Enactment Principle sets up the "paradoxical practice" of putting into place in the present what is desired in the future. A person that wants to be someone different in the future, or an organization that want to change how it manages or operates in the future must "enact" that new character or style right now in the present.
Three.
My pastor uses the term "polarity" but speaks of its frequency in the Christian faith tradition, where two truths that are equally true but contradictory, exist in real tension. In one particular sermon, he described the tension between God's immanence (God our friend, in human flesh) and God's transcendence (God the mystery, the holy).
Four.
From Sandy Pideret's essay on Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence, ambivalent attitudes are both needed and debilitating in change processes.
Fifth.
In the sixth installment of the latest Ken Burns documentary, the idea of the national park in the U.S. is described as embracing two equally important but apparently contradictory thoughts: that the National Park system should preserve America's special places in natural conditions forever, AND, that they should be open and accessible for the enjoyment of all Americans. The show continues on that early park leaders glossed over the "paradox" arguing that the way to protect parks was to build public support for them by encouraging more and more visitors. However, following World War II, as the national park system turned 100 years old, and their facilities faced stress from more and more visitors, the "balancing act between preservation and use would be severely tested." The film goes on to show an interview with a historian William Cronon who says, "It's hard to imagine national parks existing without these tensions because they are precisely the right tensions that a democratic nation should have as it tries to figure out how to protect lands that are there for all people." This last quote was what made this particular illustration one of my favorites.
"Tensions" and paradoxes can be right and necessary for organizational change, for protection of resources and people, for evolution, and for revolution. Yes, culture is... good AND bad!
Particularly, this is the paradox described on Wikipedia as the dialethea, wherein a statement is both true and false at the same time in the same sense. Or to express my conceptualization of the paradox, where a person, place or object exists in contradictory states at the same time. I'll give you some examples of the paradoxes that I've been "run over" with lately.
One.
Although there are likely many "Obama paradoxes", the one I read about most recently was how Obama was elected by a mass who saw him as ultimately accessible and representative of their own personal situation. However, as he has assumed the presidency, this accessibility is cut off at the knees by none other than the security detail and the image that Obama must assume as the "leader of the free world".
Two.
From The Power of Appreciative Inquiry by Whitney & Bloom, principle #7, The Enactment Principle sets up the "paradoxical practice" of putting into place in the present what is desired in the future. A person that wants to be someone different in the future, or an organization that want to change how it manages or operates in the future must "enact" that new character or style right now in the present.
Three.
My pastor uses the term "polarity" but speaks of its frequency in the Christian faith tradition, where two truths that are equally true but contradictory, exist in real tension. In one particular sermon, he described the tension between God's immanence (God our friend, in human flesh) and God's transcendence (God the mystery, the holy).
Four.
From Sandy Pideret's essay on Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence, ambivalent attitudes are both needed and debilitating in change processes.
Fifth.
In the sixth installment of the latest Ken Burns documentary, the idea of the national park in the U.S. is described as embracing two equally important but apparently contradictory thoughts: that the National Park system should preserve America's special places in natural conditions forever, AND, that they should be open and accessible for the enjoyment of all Americans. The show continues on that early park leaders glossed over the "paradox" arguing that the way to protect parks was to build public support for them by encouraging more and more visitors. However, following World War II, as the national park system turned 100 years old, and their facilities faced stress from more and more visitors, the "balancing act between preservation and use would be severely tested." The film goes on to show an interview with a historian William Cronon who says, "It's hard to imagine national parks existing without these tensions because they are precisely the right tensions that a democratic nation should have as it tries to figure out how to protect lands that are there for all people." This last quote was what made this particular illustration one of my favorites.
"Tensions" and paradoxes can be right and necessary for organizational change, for protection of resources and people, for evolution, and for revolution. Yes, culture is... good AND bad!
Friday, February 5, 2010
Grenier's Phases of Growth
In reading Larry Grenier's 1998 essay, "Evolution and Revolution as Organization Grow", I found myself writing questions in the margins of almost every page. This doodling is usually a sign I am passionate about a topic so according to the cartoon I just posted, that means I should blog about it!
Grenier describes organizational growth as phases of evolution, in which a management practice or style takes root, and revolution, in which specific structural or behavioral problem must be overcome before the organization can once again expand. Interestingly enough, these same terms have been used by Larry Hansen, a workplace safety management expert, to describe the efforts of companies to improve the effectiveness of their safety programs.
Hanson claims that most companies take evolutionary steps to improve their safety programs by implementing “tried and true” safety activities and “off the shelf” programs, and affixing catchy slogans and warning posters on facility walls. Hansen advises that instead, it takes a revolutionary action for companies to be world class safety-oriented organizations and specifically that management must believe that safety is “good business”. Management must drive the program but give the employees an ownership interest. He says, “To truly impact organizational performance (and results), safety leaders must change ‘what’s inside the boxes’, the basic beliefs, values, and prevailing assumptions of their organizations.” That sounds a lot like CULTURE to me, a phenomena with which I have already happily claimed a love/hate relationship.
Getting back to my notes from the margins…
Can an organization skip a phase? I want to see an organization that addresses the need for revolution “head-on”; an organization where a leader or management team wakes up, stands up and says, "Hey, let's skip this problem!" and decides instead to be proactive about how to get to the next phase of growth. That would be integrative change, i.e. a new and better model. This is also perhaps a bow to the strategic planning process where a robust SWOT analysis can uncover the inherent weaknesses and upcoming threats.
What happens when an organization at a more advanced phase of growth acquires a less “developed” organization? I want to see what goes on with an organization in Phase 1 – Creativity that is pursued by a company that is well into the red tape crisis that follows Phase 4 – Coordination.
How does this model apply to public sector organizations? Is there such a thing as a collaborative public-sector organization or do they remain mired in bureaucracy and red-tape crises?
As for what follows the Phase 5 – Collaboration stage, I love the idea of a dual organizational structure, allowing a habit structure to get the daily work done, and a reflective structure that is responsible for innovating the business and renewing the people. I am going to see if I can find out more about the European company that implemented the structure. I wonder if they’ve since experienced a revolution.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
I am not so sure...
I am not sure that most bloggers read the memo about the need for authority; myself included. I have the "passion" half of the equation covered at least!
Like beauty, is authority in the eye of the beholder?
Credit where credit is due: I found this cartoon on www.careercapitalist.com
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Inspiration for my Blog
Barack Obama's Integrative Brain
I found this blog post by Roger Martin at Harvard Business Review, www.hbr.org. Even if the writer's use of Barack Obama as an example is itself polarizing, the underlying concept of integrative thinking intrigues me.
To quote Mr. Martin, "This way of thinking — which at first blush can be mistaken for indecision — is characterized by a willingness to embrace conflicting ideas or models. I've seen this pattern of "integrative thinking" employed by a number of highly successful business leaders .... What I've found is that these leaders, rather than defining their job as choosing from between opposing ideas, are inclined to reject the choice and instead seek a new and better model."
As coaches in the workplace, HR professionals could serve our clients well by encouraging and developing this mode of thinking and problem solving.
Imagine how much more engaging and positive our work environment could be if we didn't allow "unacceptable trade-offs" and instead insisted on "breakthrough solutions" to our people and process issues.
Ensuring results will continue to be the challenge.
I found this blog post by Roger Martin at Harvard Business Review, www.hbr.org. Even if the writer's use of Barack Obama as an example is itself polarizing, the underlying concept of integrative thinking intrigues me.
To quote Mr. Martin, "This way of thinking — which at first blush can be mistaken for indecision — is characterized by a willingness to embrace conflicting ideas or models. I've seen this pattern of "integrative thinking" employed by a number of highly successful business leaders .... What I've found is that these leaders, rather than defining their job as choosing from between opposing ideas, are inclined to reject the choice and instead seek a new and better model."
As coaches in the workplace, HR professionals could serve our clients well by encouraging and developing this mode of thinking and problem solving.
Imagine how much more engaging and positive our work environment could be if we didn't allow "unacceptable trade-offs" and instead insisted on "breakthrough solutions" to our people and process issues.
Ensuring results will continue to be the challenge.
First Post Ever
Today is a good day to start on this adventure.
I have way too many "human resources" in my house.
There are 7 inches of snow and ice on our roads in Williamsburg, VA. Several of our weekend guests cannot get home safely and so are staying for a 3rd night!
I'll write an explanation of my blog title soon.
I have way too many "human resources" in my house.
There are 7 inches of snow and ice on our roads in Williamsburg, VA. Several of our weekend guests cannot get home safely and so are staying for a 3rd night!
I'll write an explanation of my blog title soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
