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.

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.

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.

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!

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 !

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?

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!