Friday, February 4, 2011
Making Fruit Salad
As my 7-year old daughter was getting ready for school this morning, she asked me what I was doing today since Fridays are known to be one of Mommy’s important study days. I told her that I needed to write about fruit salad for a class. I knew this revelation would totally turn her on because she has been the self-appointed Iron Chef of fruit salads in our house for a number of years. So, Lindsay wanted to make sure I reported that “fruit salads are good and that if you use frozen fruit, they are cold also”!
Typology of fruit salad
When I reflect about the fruit salads we make at our house, I can actually categorize them in two different ways. First, there is the fruit salad that is thrown together when there is a ripe banana on the counter and you realize that there also happens to be more than one other kind of fruit in the fruit bowl that day. For the record, the critical threshold for a spur-of-the-moment fruit salad is three different types of fruit. Second, there is the fruit salad that you actually list on your weekly menu or for which you purposely shop because you are making dinner for guests or because you signed up to bring fruit salad for a potluck dinner. In the case of the second type, the ingredients are usually more numerous and exotic. I suggest that at least five different types of fruit are critical and that raspberries, kiwis or pineapple must be considered for fruit salads meant to be consumed by others. As for a juice or syrup to toss with the fruit, for both types of salads, the fruit:sauce ratio is very important since it is always more appealing when the fruits you eat are recognizable.
So what does a fruit salad have to do with a literature review?
But, how does this brief personal reflection about fruit salad add value to my goal to describe a literature review? As suggested in class, the fruit salad and its preparation, is a metaphor for the criticality of knowing why and for whom you are reviewing literature. Just as the quantity, type, and quality of fruit and the intricacies of any sauce depend on whether you happen into or plan in advance for making fruit salad, the quantity, type, quality, and “sauce” of your literature review will depend on your research problem, your audience, and the context. And just as how the taste of the dish is dependent on how you choose, prepare and put the fruit together, so does the significance and quality of your research depend on your efforts to find and analyze your sources.
Are these bananas appropriate for a fruit salad or are they best baked into a quick bread for breakfast?
Sometimes, before you even start your literature review, you have “fruit” to sort. No sooner had I selected the topic of merit pay in K-12 education for this class project than I started recognizing the topic everywhere. I read about it in popular magazine articles and newspapers, and I listened to it in a Planet Money podcast. I also happened to mention the topic to my Labor Economics professor and sure enough, she started sending me abstracts from economics journals. My point is that even though these resources were not found in the course of my formal, step-by-step literature review, they are fruit to sort through nonetheless. And importantly, even if they don’t end up as references in my final project, they have suggested other ingredients to consider. For example, the economist interviewed by the Planet Money team has published a study on the economic value of good teachers versus bad teachers – I can look for his name and his study when I shop in peer-reviewed journals. And via the suggestions sent by my professor, I can find other studies as well as journals that have reported on the topic. One of the abstracts she sent appears to be written as a book chapter which suggests that it is a secondary source and may be good map of other literature already out there.
So, I know that fruit exists but I still have to go shopping!
I despise going to the grocery store without a list. My list keeps me focused on the menu at hand; so that I buy what I need and I don’t end up with the stuff that just looks yummy. For this literature review, my “list” contains my main topic, merit pay in K-12 education, and related terms such as pay for performance, incentive pay, teacher morale, extra-role behaviors, and teacher performance management.
Before I get in my car to go shopping, I first check to make sure my grocery bags are in the trunk. That is to say, I need to make sure I have something to bring my fruit home in once I buy it. So I create an Excel spreadsheet to track author name, article/chapter title, and the title of the journal/book. I also decide to set up a way to keep track of my purchases in case I need to tell my dinner guests where I found such delicious fruit later on. So, I also take some time to recall my RefWorks password and I create a new folder there called EDUS 660.
With my bags, list and car keys in hand, I stop to realize that I still don’t know where I am going. I need to find out which grocery store is going to have the type and quality of fruit that I want. To accomplish this for the purposes of my literature review, I identify and save a set of databases to begin my search with and then finally, I am off to shop. Even with my list, I foresee the temptation to buy other items that are strategically placed near the fruit I am looking for. For example, if “teacher engagement” wasn’t on my original list but I notice that it is a keyword in the first sources I find, I’ll probably add it to the list. On the other hand, if the serpent is hocking the caramel dip next to the apples or even just distracting exposes of No Child Left Behind legislation, I will stay focused! I must remain in “Fruit & Produce”. I dare not wander to “Frozen Foods”!
Just as I do when I shop using a list, I may make substitutions based on what is ripe or in season. For example, I may realize that one of my keywords is consistently directing me to non-peer reviewed journals or popular magazines. I’ll substitute different terms then. Also, within the records that are retrieved based on keywords or topics, I will look through the selections and pick those that appear most relevant to my topic. Before heading to the checkout line, I will also make sure that I buy enough to feed everyone at the table and that the fruit I’ve selected isn’t too old or too mushy. Similarly, my literature review must be comprehensive enough but it must not include studies that are out of date or irrelevant based on current circumstances.
Is it a Berry Medley or a Tropical Fruit Salad?
Until I get home with my groceries and start cutting up and tasting the fruit, I might not know what type of salad will actually be served at dinner. In this same way, I look forward to what my literature review will produce and how my research proposal may change based on the sources I find. Secondary sources may turn me on to a whole group of studies that make my intended proposal less relevant. I may find primary sources which suggest an area for further research that is more significant than the one I originally identified. As I organize, summarize and relate the studies to each other, I could also end up with a whole new framework for the research that I propose. And then, who knows but I may even need to run back to the store for more fruit!
Friday, January 28, 2011
Merit pay in education: quantitative and qualitative research
For the purpose of this semester’s work in educational research, I will concentrate on learning more about merit pay in education. For me, this topic was found at the intersection of personal interest and professional curiosity. From the personal side, my husband is a high school physics and chemistry teacher, a career that he left an MBA and six-figure marketing salary behind to pursue. He is passionate about teaching science and equally so about the inefficiencies of the administration of teacher pay and performance. As a human resource professional, I have experienced the impact and intricacies of merit pay and performance management programs, albeit in the corporate world. I want to look closely at “research” that has already been done on the topic and identify a problem area where additional data may shed light on the validity of designing and implementing pay for performance models in our nation’s schools.
Based on experience and education, I know there are many social, economic and political forces at play in performance management and merit pay systems in the corporate environment. There is constant debate about what performance is and how to measure it adequately and objectively. Based on an initial online review, these same arguments surround the topic when it is discussed in the field of K-12 education. Identifying some of the forces that impact the effectiveness of pay for performance systems was a “jumping off point” for the identification of quantitative and qualitative research problems.
Quantitative research problems identify, specifically define and objectively observe the interactions between variables to confirm or deny expected relationships. An example of a quantitative research question in the area of merit pay in education is “Do high school students who are taught by teachers receiving base salary plus performance incentives perform better on end-of-course evaluations than students who are taught by teachers receiving base-salary only?”. In order to identify the relationship between performance and incentive pay in such a quantitative study, it will be critical to control the variables and structure of the research. For example, the two compensation models will need to be rigorously defined and implemented for chosen subjects and methods to measure end-of-course performance will need to be established.
Qualitative research problems provide an opportunity to observe what participants naturally do in reaction to psychosocial influences or changes in the physical environment . An example of a qualitative research question in the area of merit pay in education is, “Do teachers who participate in merit pay programs experience increased morale or engagement behaviors?”. In the context of this study, a researcher might interact with participating teachers over a period of time to observe, understand and identify the effects of performance pay programs on their professional activities and attitudes about teaching.
My next challenge will be to navigate the very active debate about what constitutes performance measurement and the value of incentive pay in the education field. As I pursue this research topic, especially in undertaking the literature review, I intend to carefully identify the underlying policies, methods, definitions and models that are reported in order to identify a pressing need that my research can fulfill.
Based on experience and education, I know there are many social, economic and political forces at play in performance management and merit pay systems in the corporate environment. There is constant debate about what performance is and how to measure it adequately and objectively. Based on an initial online review, these same arguments surround the topic when it is discussed in the field of K-12 education. Identifying some of the forces that impact the effectiveness of pay for performance systems was a “jumping off point” for the identification of quantitative and qualitative research problems.
Quantitative research problems identify, specifically define and objectively observe the interactions between variables to confirm or deny expected relationships. An example of a quantitative research question in the area of merit pay in education is “Do high school students who are taught by teachers receiving base salary plus performance incentives perform better on end-of-course evaluations than students who are taught by teachers receiving base-salary only?”. In order to identify the relationship between performance and incentive pay in such a quantitative study, it will be critical to control the variables and structure of the research. For example, the two compensation models will need to be rigorously defined and implemented for chosen subjects and methods to measure end-of-course performance will need to be established.
Qualitative research problems provide an opportunity to observe what participants naturally do in reaction to psychosocial influences or changes in the physical environment . An example of a qualitative research question in the area of merit pay in education is, “Do teachers who participate in merit pay programs experience increased morale or engagement behaviors?”. In the context of this study, a researcher might interact with participating teachers over a period of time to observe, understand and identify the effects of performance pay programs on their professional activities and attitudes about teaching.
My next challenge will be to navigate the very active debate about what constitutes performance measurement and the value of incentive pay in the education field. As I pursue this research topic, especially in undertaking the literature review, I intend to carefully identify the underlying policies, methods, definitions and models that are reported in order to identify a pressing need that my research can fulfill.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Dedication to EDUS 660: "...sometimes you have to make stuff up..."
Arriving home from a great first class last night, my husband and I settled down to watch one of our favorite TV shows, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Since we are also fans of PBS's NOVA, we were excited to replay Tuesday's episode in which Jon Stewart welcomed back one of his regular guests, Neil geGrasse Tyson, who is an astrophysicist and host of the new NOVA scienceNow program on PBS.
Of course, my ears perked up when I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson say the following:
"When you are on the frontier of knowledge, between what is known and unknown, reaching out into that abyss, sometimes you do actually have to make stuff up that might be true so that you can organize a research plan to find out whether or not it is."
Cheers to a great semester and to the stuff that we might have to make up!
Of course, my ears perked up when I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson say the following:
"When you are on the frontier of knowledge, between what is known and unknown, reaching out into that abyss, sometimes you do actually have to make stuff up that might be true so that you can organize a research plan to find out whether or not it is."
Cheers to a great semester and to the stuff that we might have to make up!
"AND when I grow up, I want to be ...": an integrative appraoch to your career path!
Before I dedicate this blog to EDUS 660 for a semester-long reflection on educational research, I want to memorialize some thoughts that I've been tossing around in my brain over the winter break.
The concept first struck me when I read Harvard Business Review blog posts by Roger Martin issued on 11/24/2010 and 12/10/2010. Mr. Martin discusses contrasts the logic, or lack thereof, of IF/THEN/BUT and IF/THEN/AND structures. He applies them to several corporate and artistic ventures where one can see the benefit of integrative thinking which produces something from nothing or at least something from that which wasn't expected or thought possible. I'll recommend Mr. Martin's posts for further and better description of his personal insights.
His reflections led me to think about the application of "BUT" or "AND" to one's career plan. When planning job changes or professional moves, isn't it freeing to say "AND what I want to do next is..." instead of, "BUT I need to make more money or have a grander title or expand the number of people or products that report to me?" This approach allows you to see the value of what you have done or been and apply it as you write the next chapter of your career path.
I just had occasion to catch up with an acquaintance from the local SHRM chapter and he described a new job he'd taken as what he had wanted to do "when he grew up." I am so happy that he found this opportunity. I also want to encourage him that this is an "AND" in his path; perhaps it is not the only time he can "grow up" as a professional.
Over the past few years, as I have taken time to step away from 60 hour workweeks in corporate HR roles, my "ANDs" have been graduate education, more hands-on motherhood, preschool teaching, as well as PTA leadership. I am looking forward to my next adventure as I return to work in the HR field on a full-time basis following graduation. I treat this upcoming adventure as an "AND" which adds value to what I have already been as mother, student, worker, wife. I look forward to what each of those accomplishments lead me to be able to do when I "grow up."
The concept first struck me when I read Harvard Business Review blog posts by Roger Martin issued on 11/24/2010 and 12/10/2010. Mr. Martin discusses contrasts the logic, or lack thereof, of IF/THEN/BUT and IF/THEN/AND structures. He applies them to several corporate and artistic ventures where one can see the benefit of integrative thinking which produces something from nothing or at least something from that which wasn't expected or thought possible. I'll recommend Mr. Martin's posts for further and better description of his personal insights.
His reflections led me to think about the application of "BUT" or "AND" to one's career plan. When planning job changes or professional moves, isn't it freeing to say "AND what I want to do next is..." instead of, "BUT I need to make more money or have a grander title or expand the number of people or products that report to me?" This approach allows you to see the value of what you have done or been and apply it as you write the next chapter of your career path.
I just had occasion to catch up with an acquaintance from the local SHRM chapter and he described a new job he'd taken as what he had wanted to do "when he grew up." I am so happy that he found this opportunity. I also want to encourage him that this is an "AND" in his path; perhaps it is not the only time he can "grow up" as a professional.
Over the past few years, as I have taken time to step away from 60 hour workweeks in corporate HR roles, my "ANDs" have been graduate education, more hands-on motherhood, preschool teaching, as well as PTA leadership. I am looking forward to my next adventure as I return to work in the HR field on a full-time basis following graduation. I treat this upcoming adventure as an "AND" which adds value to what I have already been as mother, student, worker, wife. I look forward to what each of those accomplishments lead me to be able to do when I "grow up."
Monday, November 29, 2010
A consultant's reflection at the end of the semester
"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!
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
