"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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
