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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I admire your conviction and how you recognize your passion for HRD. Regarding the concepts around “dialogue,” I appreciate the intentions of the writings while recognizing the realities of the challenges in doing it. Recently I encountered a few situations where those involved expressed a desire to dialogue about what was happening. In each situation, it was not very long before the dialogue progressed too close to the cause of the issue. As soon as there was a glimpse into the heart of the matter, the dialogue was converted into talking. There is an admission cost to enter into dialogue, and sometimes that price is not realized until the words get too deep.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the phrase “performance management dialogue” is an oxymoron. Oh sure, like there’s really going to be an authentic dialogue after the official performance review form has been completed, raises/bonus amounts have been submitted to the comp department, and the bell curve has been plotted for all performers. One of my favorite comments that I always hear when discussing this dialogue topic is the famous statement, “I don’t give out perfect rating scores to any of my employees, but I am open to hearing how they think they are doing.”
Rachel: your comments about the importance of the relationships between people at work, particularly the necessity for individuals to be in relationship with each other in order to create the openness that will facilitate dialogue, ring true to me. While I don't quite share your passion for HR--I also have never experienced the cynicism or perhaps hatred that you have apparently heard or observed in your role as an HR expert! I am so sorry about that--it sounds quite traumatic.
ReplyDeleteThis morning on NPR, as I drove to work, I heard James MacIntosh talk about customer service during his "Nonsense at Work" piece. In this segment Mr. MacIntosh talked about how his relationship with an particular company had nothing to do with that company but had everything to do with a person who represented that company. When that particular person left the company, so did Mr. MacIntosh's relationship and connection to the organization. Such a simple concept, and one that is overlooked too often. Mr. MacIntosh's point was that if company's were fully aware of this, they would invest more in retaining those employees who are good at developing relationships with other. And if company's were fully aware of this, perhaps the individuals in the company would spend more time considering how to apply a performance management system to the individuals who work there in the best interest of the individual AND the company. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, but as you write, the relationship needs to be there to create a setting in which dialogue can happen.