Subscribe2Succeed blogs give you tips, articles, and references to resources for the interpersonal "people skills" needed for workplace, professional, and life success. Posts are high-content and visually-appealing for printing and sharing with others, with a sprinkling of fun in the mix. Learn; apply; enjoy!
Watch this Blog Notify me by e-mail any time a new post is made to this blog.
Archived blog posts from Sylvia's OD blog at BlogStream.com (account closed)
July 2009 Posts
Archives
Getting Ready to Be Ready
This topic is immediately relevant for me and I will be writing a longer article about this (which you will find at HR.com when finished). I use this blog entry—and perhaps others—to get started and organize my thoughts. (Ain’t blogging great? Public forums for private Post-It™ notes!)
The immediate relevance is this: I have just become President of a chapter of a national professional association. While becoming president was expected (as I was to be President-Elect this year beginning June 1), becoming president immediately was not. Due to a wonderful, unexpected career opportunity made available to our incoming President, he had to resign his newly-elected and hard-earned position as our chapter president. Two weeks passed between “I might have to resign my position; are you ready?” and “With this letter I submit my resignation”. In those two weeks, while out of town part of the time, I had some major thinking, planning, and communicating to do both within the organization I was about to lead and with my family whose time and attention would be negatively impacted.
The short of it is that the transition goes well so far. This is, in no small part, due to the entire Board of Directors working together over the past few years, contributing to and owning a stake in the vision, goals, and objectives of the organization. Each of us has held leadership positions outside this particular organization. Each of us either runs our own business or is in a management decision-making position in a company or government agency. Each of us has been preparing to assume greater responsibilities in this organization over the years. More importantly, we encourage our members to get actively involved in committee and leadership roles across the organization, creating a pipeline of leaders ready to assume board positions when their times arise.
What does all this mean to Organizational Development? Succession planning! We are practicing the succession planning that is necessary in most organizations today. Typically, succession planning involves the top-level management team—who will succeed the outgoing CEO or President of a company? As generational changes occur over the next few years with Baby Boomer top management retiring, a resource drain takes place if the knowledge and experiences of those leaving is not passed on to those rising to leadership positions. Succession plans must involve all levels of the organization to maintain a continual resource pool for leadership across all areas.
Organizations must establish the plans, obtain the resources, and create the experiences for their people to help them get ready to be ready for leadership opportunities when they present themselves.
Even this blogging forum allows me to get ready to be ready to write the longer article I intend to write on this topic. But don’t look for the article in the next week or two. I’m digging out of the pile of “stuff” involved in my sudden ascendancy to President. I am now putting into action the “be ready” part of the equation. And look at this experience from now until next June 1 as getting ready to be ready for future challenges and opportunities that await me in life.
Pearls of Organizational Culture (Continued)
Three Cultural Levels of Organizations
Edgar Schein's model of organizational culture defines three levels of culture that exist in organizations.
1-Organizational attributes that are seen, felt and heard to the uninitiated observer, including
· Facilities, offices, and furnishings.
· Visible awards and recognition
· The way members dress
· How people visibly interact with each other and with organizational "outsiders".
2-Professed culture of the organization's members themselves, typically identified through interviews and questionnaires that gather attitudes of the members, including:
· Company slogans, mission statements and other expressed operational creed
· Local and personal values widely expressed within the organizatio
3-Tacit (deep; subliminal; "unspoken rules") assumptions are the cultural elements that are unseen and not consciously identified in everyday interactions between organizational members. They are, at times, cultural elements that are taboo to discuss inside the organization. Experienced members understand this deep level of organizational culture and acclimate themselves to it over time, thus adding to its invisibility and staying power. OD practitioners use more in-depth studies and techniques to identify and examine culture at this level. It is the cultural level most challenging to diagnose and change.
Cultural Paradox
What one sees is not always what one gets when it comes to organizational culture. The paradox that plays in identifying an organization's culture is that what is communicated about the culture consciously and openly may not be what is truly represented by the organization's practices and leadership.
An organization can profess that it respects individuals and honors creativity at one level, yet discourage said individualism and creativity at a deeper level through its rewards systems and uniform dress code. An organization may note at its website, in commercials, and in distributed documentation that its focus on the customer is its first priority. Yet, the decision-making and reporting processes practiced daily emphasize the importance of the bottom line over customer service. An organization may have in place a detailed diversity and inclusiveness initiative, yet allow (through inattention and avoiding enforcement) exclusive and unfair practices to persist in a specific department or region of the country.
On the surface, organizational rewards can imply one organizational norm while at its deepest level imply something completely different. Such paradoxes highlight why it takes time for individuals new to or outside the organization to acclimate themselves to, and assimilate, organizational cultures and norms. It also explains why organizational change agents must discover and understand both explicit and implicit cultural norms before initiating change. Yet one more aspect of organizational culture needs understanding before effecting change-the dynamics of interpersonal relationships. Should such relationships threaten an environment conducive to change, these relationships must be addressed as part of the change process.
Conclusion
In summary, note that organizational culture is as multi-tiered and complex as individual and societal culture. The organization's leaders set a cultural tone for the organization that pervades throughout the organization. Rewards and operational procedures; structure and reporting processes; open and "unspoken" norms and interpersonal relationships play important roles in defining, communicating, and encouraging organizational cultures.
However an organization's culture is defined and evaluated, one must understand the breadth and depth encompassed by the culture before faciliting organizational change.
More Resources
· Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Hofstede, G. Sage Publications. ISBN #080391444X.
· Gung Ho! Turn On the People in Any Organization Ken Blanchard. William Morrow. ISBN #068815428X.
· Who Moved My Cheese? Spencer Johnson & Kenneth Blanchard.Putnam Adult. ISBN #0399144463.
· Organizational Culture and Leadership. Schein, E.H. Jossey-Bass. ISBN #0787975974.
Pearls Aren’t the Only Things Cultured
As I define “organizational culture” for a course I am writing, this seems equally appropriate for a blog. So here goes.
What is organizational culture?
In defining "culture" as it refers to an organization, we first define the word as it pertains to individuals.
Culture: Individual and Societal
According to the definition and description of "culture" at the online encyclopedia Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/), culture "refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance". Varying theories for understanding and criteria for evaluating, human activity result in different definitions of culture. One suggested definition of culture from the 19th century is that culture (civilization) "is a complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by [man] as a member of society". (Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, 1832–1917. English anthropologist.) This definition seems focused on individuals as cultural entities.
A more-recent 21st century definition of culture suggests that culture is the "set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs". (UNESCO-United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural organization's Declaration of Cultural Diversity http://www.unesco.org/education/imld_2002/unversal_decla.shtml.) This definition seems focused on groups as cultural disseminators.
The Dictionary of Modern Sociology (Thomas Ford Hoult. Littlefield Adams.) notes that culture consists of three elements-values, norms, and artifacts. Values consist of ideas about what in life seems important, and guide other aspects of culture. Norms are expectations of people's behaviors, based on values, communicated and enforced by laws, sanctions, or rules. Artifacts are material things that represent, in some manner, the culture's values and norms.
Organizational Culture
Take from the previous definitions and apply them to organizational or corporate culture, we define said culture as the attitudes, values, beliefs, norms and customs of an organization. Organizational culture differs from an organization's structure in that structure is the hierarchy of how people organize within and relate to the organization. (Too many "organizations", yet?) Organizational culture is more esoteric in that it is less tangible. Yet, it can be identified and measured through appropriate instrumentation and evaluation techniques.
Cultural Levels
Individual and societal cultures encompass as many levels as there are identities to own. On some broad, encompassing levels, societal culture defines the individual. (Ex: culture of the human race; culture of being female or male.) On another level, regional culture defines the individual. (Ex: nationalities; ethnicities; regions of a country.) Yet another level of culture lends itself more to how individuals identify themselves. (Ex: beliefs; professions; socio-economics; races; abilities; orientations; interests.)
Serious students and practitioners of sociology, anthropology, psychology, and the like can debate and dissect my above statements as much as they / you deem necessary. Remember that I am a businessperson with an organizational, humanistic, behavioral focus rather than a specialist in scientific fields. I netted-out what are, in reality, complex, detailed, continually researched definitions and concepts.
I like Edgar Schein's description of three cultural levels within an organization. (Edgar Schein. Professor, MIT Sloan School of Management, author of "Organizational Culture and Leadership". Jossey-Bass.) Schein notes that culture is an organizational attribute posing the greatest challenge to organizational change. Culture overrides and outlasts the products, services, people, processes, and other physical attributes of an organization.
[NOTE: Next blog entry will continue with the second of culture in his model of organizational culture.]
Resources:
- Google “organizational culture”. Prepare to spend a day reading the results!
- Book: Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Deal T. E. and Kennedy, A. A. Penguin Books.
- Book: Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't. Collins, Jim. Collins.
Both Sides of the Coin
An interesting exchange ensued among OD consultants with whom I associate. If we are shareholders of a company (not the company with whom we are consulting, of course), when we advocate change, can we live with the manner in which the change is implemented?
My caveat about not being a shareholder in the company with whom we consult is an “of course” because such a relationship is fraught with the potential to be perceived as a conflict of interest or an ethics violation. Notice I said potential and perceived. Neither term means “is” or “reality”, yet we, as Organizational Development consultants entrusted with an organization’s proprietary information, must avoid even the perception of impropriety.
That said, I go back to considering whether we can live with the manner in which the very change we recommend is implemented. As OD consultants, we may advocate change that management implements by eliminating departments, distributing business elsewhere, and getting rid of people. Our training in theories and processes enable us to view people as resources to be managed—one way or another. By the way, our same training—plus our humanness—also causes us to consider the human impact of the change we recommend and temper management actions accordingly. Yet, the ultimate change implementation is carried out because of, or in spite of, our recommendations.
The economic irony of change that includes losing people is that when more people are employed, there is more “production”. I place this word in quotes today because production means far more than goods (which was its limited definition during the industrial period in
the USA). Production today may include goods, services, knowledge tools, and any other value-based “products”.
Anyway, with more production, people are more efficient. Profits are greater. Employers are better off. Higher profits may lead to more investment. More investment leads to more production. (Simplified, from:
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/eco/EPE/coord/Chapter30.pdf ? among other Economics 101 sources.) As stakeholders, we care about profits. (Again, an over-simplification.)
The exchange among consultants resulted in more “Mmmm, something to think about”s than answers. For each individual, the answer is unique and personal. The question gives one pause for thought and introspection. It also makes us examine our values and intent when we engage in the consultation process. Examining values and intent is a good thing for anyone to do.
Project Manager: Work With or Serve As?
My OD discussion list, as well as an article in Computerworld ("The New Project Manager")
currently addresses the roles of the Organizational Development Consultant and Project Manager. Primarily, does the OD consultant work with an organization’s project manager, or does the consultant serve as the project manager?
The short answer is “both, depending on the situation”. Don’t you just love answers like that? Seems that is the answer in so many OD cases. Solutions within an organization are not cut-and-dry; either-or; yes-no very often. Let us look at project management and how an OD consultant fits into the picture.
Ideally, organizations should grow project management talent and skills internally. There are formal project management programs at colleges and universities that yield PM certifications, as well as consultant groups that offer classes that result in a PM certification. However, the best way to grow a strong, effective project manager is through on-the-job experience and guidance. Can you say “mentor”? With the mass exodus of experienced, seasoned leaders and managers in the next few years as the baby boomer generation retires, it serves an organization well to establish a mentoring program that matches newer leaders and managers with experienced ones. The resulting knowledge and skills transfer develops effective project managers along the longevity continuum in the organization.
An OD consultant should play a part in growing strong internal project management skills. Rather than doing the job for someone, the OD consultant can use his or her expertise and “outside view” to make recommendations and provide guidance that develops the internal manager.
However (there’s that caveat again), should the OD consultant be needed to serve as a project manager, said consultant should have the PM skills necessary to do so. And just what are these skills? The Computerworld article referenced above does a nice job of outlining these skills. Briefly, the skills include:
Read the full article to fill-in the details for the listed project management skills.
Overall, the OD consultant needs to have project management skills in order to lead a client through the changes for which said consultant is hired. So much the better when internal leaders learn the PM skills.
To find formal project management certification programs, use your favorite Internet search tool and search for “project management certification”. You may need to narrow the search to your city or state because of the long list resulting from this search argument.
Non-Profits and For-Profits: It’s Business
An interesting question recently ran its course through the OD List discussion network to which I belong: "Should a non-profit organization have performance standards?" I find the question interesting because it represents just one of many I hear asked about non-profit organizations as if non-profits were run differently from for-profit organizations. The views expressed in the discussion mostly leaned towards pointing out that (thriving) non-profits employ the same business strategies and operations that for-profits employ, with the positives and negatives that go with them. The distinction between non-profits and for-profits is more a tax distinction than one involving the organizations' operations and governance. An organization is a structure employing systems that - hopefully - work together to achieve the organization's mission. These systems include the governance and operational components (people, resources, processes, standards, and more) that make up a business. The primary distinction between non-profits and for-profits is that non-profits have certain constraints on how their profits are distributed. They must be re-distributed back into the organization to its mission. Either type of organization, if it is to thrive, must practice sound business principles. Either organization seeks strong leadership, invests in its people, sets operational and management standards, creates and implements processes and procedures, encourages ethical behavior, and operates to be financially sound. Either organization strives to serve its identified stakeholders and constituencies. The same forces that cause a for-profit organization to fail cause non-profits to do the same. Therefore, the business and social practices that contribute to an organization's successes apply to both non-profits and for-profits. The net answer to the original question is "yes".
An interesting question recently ran its course through the OD List discussion network to which I belong:
"Should a non-profit organization have performance standards?"
I find the question interesting because it represents just one of many I hear asked about non-profit organizations as if non-profits were run differently from for-profit organizations. The views expressed in the discussion mostly leaned towards pointing out that (thriving) non-profits employ the same business strategies and operations that for-profits employ, with the positives and negatives that go with them.
The distinction between non-profits and for-profits is more a tax distinction than one involving the organizations' operations and governance.
An organization is a structure employing systems that - hopefully - work together to achieve the organization's mission. These systems include the governance and operational components (people, resources, processes, standards, and more) that make up a business. The primary distinction between non-profits and for-profits is that non-profits have certain constraints on how their profits are distributed. They must be re-distributed back into the organization to its mission.
Either type of organization, if it is to thrive, must practice sound business principles. Either organization seeks strong leadership, invests in its people, sets operational and management standards, creates and implements processes and procedures, encourages ethical behavior, and operates to be financially sound. Either organization strives to serve its identified stakeholders and constituencies.
The same forces that cause a for-profit organization to fail cause non-profits to do the same. Therefore, the business and social practices that contribute to an organization's successes apply to both non-profits and for-profits.
The net answer to the original question is "yes".
Hi, Performing Teams (Yes…This is a Play-on-Words)
I write this one day after the 2006 Winter Olympic torch was extinguished in Torino, Italy. While I am hard-pressed to name one athlete and his or her accomplishment within three years, eleven-and-a-half months between Olympic events, I avidly watched all two weeks of sports coverage during the events. The same holds true for the summer games. What struck me the most during these Winter Games is the pressure we place on medals (gold, especially), the sportsmanship (or lack thereof) of individuals representing teams, and the mindset of those held in high esteem prior to their expected performances aligned with their words after less-than-stellar performances. As with most analogies, there are tie-ins between these areas and characteristics of high-performing teams in organizations.
First—the pressure of achievement at the highest level. In this case, the achievement to which I refer is “thing-oriented”. Gold medals, in the case of the Olympics; you determine your “thing-orientation” in terms of your organization. The pressure placed on people barely within the legal age of adulthood to acquire the golden load for an entire nation is a burden I can hardly imagine. Personally, I am impressed with what it takes just to participate in an event such as the Olympics, let alone to medal; and then, to win gold! As a tennis player in college I was a
choker—someone who made a lot of mistakes just when the pressure was most intense to win. I watched athlete after athlete choke during the telecast broadcasts of the Games and recalled my own experiences. I look back at my corporate experience where I worked with teams of people with high expectations. When the team expectations were out of line with either the organization’s or my own, our performance was less than expected. We reached choke-points where we had difficulty moving forward to achieve the levels expected of us. In college, it took special sports counseling to learn to work through my own choke points. For Olympic-caliber athletes it takes sports counseling and skilled coaching to do the same. In organizations it takes coaching, communication, and team training to get through the choke points and become a high-performing team.
Second—sportsmanship. The two most-striking examples of representative teamwork for me were the exchanges between the first African-American male individual gold medalist in a Winter Olympics (speed skating) and his gold medal-winning teammate, and the speed skating teamwork required in the relay event. One of these is a negative example; one a positive one. The public sniping between two teammates was disappointing given the significance of their individual athletic accomplishments and the social significance of one. None of us knows the true causes of the perceived animosities between two athletes who, on outward appearances, should have represented one national team together. These unknowns and perceptions reinforced for me the characteristics of a high-performing team that include:
- Build relationships for trust and respect.
- Respect and understand each others' "diversity".
- Practice effective dialogue instead of debate.
- Identify and resolve group conflicts.
It was clear that these characteristics were lacking for the two sniping speed skaters.
The relay team, on the other hand, demonstrated the following positive characteristics of a high-performing team:
- Share a common purpose / goals.
- Balance task and process.
- Value synergism and interdependence.
- Emphasize and support team goals.
- Reward individual performance that supports the team.
- Communicate effectively.
- Practice continuous improvement.
- Critique the way they work as a team, regularly and consistently.
- Involve members in clear problem-solving and decision making procedures.
Third—mindset. Prior to the Olympics, one athlete in particular received great press and intense media exposure and commercial success. He was expected to win five gold medals. He turned out to win no medals at all. He was seen as less than committed to the goal of five medals, and he had excuses for his performance when he was interviewed by the press. His attitude was less than I expected from someone purportedly dedicated to earning five gold medals. What came to my mind was that he went to Torino with goals of earning gold medals, yet I wondered just whose goals they were. Was this young man truly dedicated—mind and soul—to achieving a goal that was not genuinely his own? When team members are not in sync with the team’s goals because they were not a part of the goal-setting process to begin with, how committed might they be to accomplishing those goals? How high can a team perform when its members are not invested in the team’s results?
Characteristics of a high-performing team indicative of team members truly invested in the team’s success include:
- Plan thoroughly before acting.
- Vary levels and intensity of work.
- Provide a balance between work and home.
If ever there are times when teams need to perform at their highest levels, the Olympic games are some of those times. What stellar examples of positive—or negative—team performances we get to see every two years (summer or winter).
Note: Characteristics of high-performing teams are listed at http://www.improve.org/team1.html.
What I Want to Be If I Grow Up…On Thought Leadership
The term “thought leader” is prominent across the business landscape. Not only is it a key term in this online resource, it is also found all over the Internet (Google “thought leader”), prevalent in the media (see FastCompany magazine, as a prime example), thrown about in marketing environs, and referenced by all manner of learning institutions.
In one of my moments of pondering, I wondered just what is a thought leader and how can I get to be one? I proceeded to let my fingers walk to my favorite Internet search engine to investigate these questions. Here is what I found.
A resource referenced by multiple sites where I found discourse on thought leadership is elise.com. Since that site was referenced by many others, I figured I should go there to discover what insights await. I was not disappointed. A posted article that specifically addresses my pondering notes that a thought leader is “a recognized leader in one’s field” (ref: http://www.elise.com/web/a/000127print.php). The difference between a thought leader and just someone who knows something is how much that person is recognized by others as being knowledgeable.
Hmm. Does that mean that if I tell enough people that I know something, I can be a thought leader? Can I put “thought leader” on my business card and suddenly be one? Well, no, as I continue to read with growing disappointment. You see, the recognition is built on trust and reputation, and on other people’s perceptions and referrals, rather than on advertising and self-promotion. Shucks. So much for that plan.
I sit back and ponder some more. Do I really want to continue pursuing trying to be a thought leader person? Well, the article continues to note that “Companies will look to you for insight and vision. Journalists will quote you, analysts will call you, websites will link to you.” Whoa! How awesome would that be? I have a somewhat expanded ego and inflated level of self-esteem. (Note to self: research “humility” as a concept, some day.) This thought leader thing might be just up my alley. I can’t give up on the idea yet.
As I continue to research this idea of thought leadership, I learn that I need to change my mindset to one of being generous with my time (not a problem), intelligence (hmmm), and knowledge (OK…I can do this). I need to be open and share what I know. Then I need to follow some more guidelines, such as:
· Cultivate and maintain a positive relationship with the media—all types. I need to give media sources something they can use; genuinely and respectfully provide what is in it for them.
· Write a lot. (Wow! Am I well on my way with this one.)
· Distribute my writings to information sources so they can publish them, interview me, or quote my work. (Does this include the port-a-john wall where I left a sticker with my website URL?)
· Give presentations. (I knew I joined the National Speakers Association for a reason.)
· Make use of electronic resources. Create websites with useful “stuff”, full of ideas, references, and valuable tools that others can use—relating to my areas of expertise, of course.
· Be generous with my information. Make what I have to offer available to the world rather than nickel-dime (be miserly with) every word and sentence.
· Make thought leadership a strategic imperative. (Hey! We’re back to my original pondering here.) Integrate knowledge and skills transfer into all aspects of my business.
So, can I be a thought leader if I grow up? Growing up is not one of the criteria, which pleases me to no end. Can I be one? Not through self-promotion or advertising campaigns. It seems that to be anointed a thought leader is out of my hands and in to the hands of everyone else I touch and influence. What is in my hands is the commitment to give—time, resources, information.
Guess that means I keep writing!
Subjective Qualifiers
We think it but dare not say it…publicly, anyway. “We reach out because of our diversity initiatives but we cannot find people who speak or present themselves in a manner that projects who we are as an organization.” What we say is, “We try, but we cannot find ‘qualified individuals’ for the position.”
Dig a little deeper and these thoughts and words take two paths – the organization, and the individual who represents the target “diverse” candidate.
On the organization – OD – path, diversity is more than a one-time project or specific initiative. Diversity is to be an organization-wide, systemic, pluralistic state of being; a condition to exist and persist throughout every aspect of an organization. This path is the typical path addressed in most diversity readings and trainings.
(Definition of “pluralism”: 1. The condition of being multiple or plural. 2. A condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society. 3. The belief that such a condition is desirable or socially beneficial. Source: Dictionary.com.)
On the individual candidate or worker path, diversity is the condition where the individual – regardless of who he or she is – has as equal a chance at the opportunities, responsibilities, open doors, and challenges as any other individual OF EQUAL QUALIFICATION in the organization. It is also the condition where an individual’s differences from other individuals are valued and exploited within the organization. This path is the path most-delicately addressed in diversity readings and trainings.
(Note that the definition of “exploit” has positive connotations: 1. to employ to the greatest possible advantage ? exploit one's talents. 2. to advertise or promote. Source: Dictionary.com.)
Let’s go a step further into the interpretation of “equal qualification”. While a sometimes-volatile topic of discussion when addressed openly, my gut feeling (supported by private conversations with people of many demographics and backgrounds) is that equal qualification is interpreted in two basic ways. One interpretation of “equally qualified” is objective. The objective interpretation draws on academic accomplishment and work-life experience in areas that
directly relate to the knowledge and skills needed to perform successfully in a particular job or specialty. With training, guidelines, consultation, and careful study, objective measurements against which performance is measured and qualifications are compared are documented and enforced in an (ideal) organization.
Another interpretation of “equally qualified” is subjective. The subjective interpretation draws on the way in which a candidate (for acceptance into an educational institution or job, or for promotion and advancement within a career) is viewed by other people. Regardless of who we are, we are viewed by others based on how we speak, act, look, react, and present ourselves. These are the core of the subjective interpretations of “qualified”. These are also the more sensitive areas of a person’s presence and behavior where borderlines are drawn as to what is – and is not – addressed directly with a person.
A third interpretation of “qualification”, in my mind and professional practice, has zero basis for consideration when qualifying an individual for an educational or professional position at all – with extremely limited exception. What a person believes, how they live, whom they choose to love, what their political views entail, and other personal choices – as long as they have no direct bearing on professional performance or educational accomplishment – are aspects of a person not to be considered as qualifying parameters in a professional arena.
Back to the subjective qualifiers of personal presence and professional behavior. In my “Success Language” programs I identify and address the following characteristics that make up subjective criteria:
· Effective use of language (for me it is American English, but can be transposed to any language spoken in a professional setting).
· Attitude and positive (or negative) messages.
· Individuality.
· Personal presence – how we “come across”, which is a combination of many aspects of physical presentation.
· Timeliness.
· Respect, and personal ethics.
· Work ethic.
You can identify other areas that comprise subjective qualifications in your mind, I am sure.
Essentially, the impression you have of someone is what is so subjective, and what is difficult to quantify when considering qualifying a person.
The challenge is to quantify the subjective by relating aspects of behavior and personal presence to direct performance criteria, which is objective (or should be…but that’s another subject). Doing so provides you with objective, identifiable parameters with which “qualification” is measured. You also gain the specific knowledge, skills, or attitude gaps that can be addressed through training or other professional and personal development initiatives.
Because I Can
After making a controversial statement about a sensitive diversity issue, I was asked by a member of a discussion group how I could bring up such sensitive points of view “in public”. My response was, “Because I can”, with an emphasis on the “I”. February is African-American History Month in the United States and any manner of educational institution, business, non-profit, or other organization seeks ways in which to honor a specific slice of American demographic. Since I have this public forum available, and I happen to be American-born, with dark skin inherited from descendents of the African continent, I shall weigh in on a thought or two about African-American History month … because I can.
Uh oh! I can hear the silent groans in collective circles now. She’s not going THERE, is she? Why does she have to bring this stuff up when she’s supposed to be writing about organizational development topics? We’re not going to get another lecture on diversity, are we?
Well, no we’re not (going to get another lecture on diversity), and yes we are. In a way. You see, my views on The Diversity Issue and on celebrating African-American History Month are complicated, atypical, and ever-evolving. There is little chance of netting things out in 400 words (more-or-less). There are so many “shoulds” and “shouldn’ts” on so many levels, involving so many aspects of the human diaspora that a completely inadequate result is achieved in an article or a defined workshop or a specific organizational initiative.
Ay, there’s the rub (with thanks to William Shakespeare for the phrase). For it is in the articles and workshops and organizational diversity initiatives (there’s the OD part!) lie the seeds from which awareness and open discussion and change can grow. To devote a defined month to celebrate and recognize a specific demographic is to highlight and separate a single group of people, yet reach out to best use the range of talents and skills available to create a unified, supportive, profitable, competitive, and effective organization as a whole. Idealistic? Perhaps.Optimistic? Probably. Realistic? I think so, with an awful lot of work still ahead on many fronts.
As I approach HR decision-makers about a book I’ve written (see: www.WhyYouTalkSoWhite.com) the overriding comment I receive is that the topic is too sensitive to address from an HR perspective. Such comments dismay me because without HR attention to matters concerning the very field that bears the name – human resources – few others in an organization will address sensitive and necessary issues such as diversity, substandard performance, ethics, and the like.
While I have mixed feelings about dedicating just one month to one culture’s history, I wonder if any attention would be given to a multitude of issues if such recognition did not occur. Our biggest challenge – and that includes everyone’s challenge – is to take what is started (or only addressed in) February each year and build on the awareness, outreach, discoveries, and conversations throughout the year and over time. Our challenge – as individuals and as colleagues within organizations – is to “sit down together at the table of brotherhood”, hold open and honest discord with each other, and create situations where our human resources “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”. [Martin Luther King, Jr., “I Have A Dream” speech, delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, USA - August 28, 1963.]
Take time – in February, and every month – to look within, challenge a perception or state of being, risk opening yourself to an alternative way of viewing something, and take action that makes a difference to one person, an organization, or to society as a whole.
Badiliko,
Sylvia
(Badiliko = Swahili for change of conditions, customs, practices)
Client-Consultant Relationship
In order to maintain a pulse on issues and concerns of importance in the OD field, I joined several OD list services and discussion groups. As if my e-mail inbox needs the additional traffic! Members of these discussion groups are international as are you, the readers of this web log.
A current discussion item on one listserve is the merits and negatives of OD consultants having long term relationships with their clients. “Relationships” refers to business relationships, mind you.
What I find interesting is the so-far 50-50 split in opinions of those who participate. I originally thought this was a no-brainer; that a long term relationship is definitely preferable. This opinion is not universally held, I discover.
The initial relationship–building process seems to be viewed without diverse opinions as to difficulty or enthusiasm for the process.
Once a solid, positive client-consultant relationship is established, common denominators that maintain the relationship in a productive (for both parties) state include:
· Communication.
· Trust.
· Problem-solving skills.
· Planning and strategy.
· Confidentiality.
· Honesty (in giving and receiving feedback and pointing out ways to improve).
Where opinions vary the most is whether creative solutions diminish the longer an OD consultant is entrenched within a client’s organization, and how long is “long-term”.
“Long term” seems to be defined in the client-consultant relationship as 4-to-5 years or longer, together. I essentially agree with this definition.
Those who believe long-term relationships are more negative than positive state that they think consultants are prone to absorb the culture of the organization with which they closely work. They become more a part of the organization than is healthy for objective analysis and effective solutions. Organizational politics tend to affect and influence consultants long-term just as they affect and influence the organization’s employees. Creative solutions for which consultants are hired tend to dwindle the longer a consultant associates with an organization. People in the organization view the consultant as one of them and pay less heed to recommendations.
I personally disagree with this viewpoint. I am a proponent of long-term relationships not only because they are economically beneficial but because of how I view a “good OD consultant”. The economics are such that initiating, solidifying, and building a client-consultant relationship costs more than maintaining the relationship. These are equivalent economies of scale to employee hiring, training, and on-the-job development. You already realize that retaining a productive employee is more financially beneficial than firing, then hiring, training, and getting up-to-speed yet another new employee.
A “good” OD consultant conducts her or his business by a code of conduct and through professional consulting competencies. Inherent in our standards (as OD consultants – including trainers, coaches, facilitators, and advisors) is a commitment to stay current with changing workplace, business, non-profit, or other environment issues. We must, ourselves, be committed to continual learning throughout our professional endeavors. We typically involve ourselves with multiple aspects of a client’s organization and have a broad view of long-range consequences. We network with each other, discussing new approaches and long-held theories, challenging each other and offering alternative solutions and resources to consider (while maintaining client confidentiality). We have the backbone to give frank feedback to those who pay our consulting fees, or there is little point in bringing someone in from outside the organization. These, and other OD consulting competencies and ethical obligations should keep the consultant-client relationship fresh, effective, and beneficial to both parties.
I believe both clients and consultants value strong, long-term professional relationships. Positive business results (whether for-profit or non-profit) evolve from such partnerships.
Codes of Ethics...Necessary?
An organization of which I have just become Immediate Past National President is evaluating its Code of Ethics for members. The Board of Trustees finds itself in the dilemma of having defined a code over the last 14 months, yet realizing that enforcement poses challenges. As code violations are reported, the muscle to actually discipline members needs strengthening. The organization is a fraternal social organization with members who belong because they share a common hobby. There is no job performance, professional ethic, or safety and security certification involved in being a member.
I started researching codes of ethics (and conduct), ethical standards in organizations, and considerations for developing such codes. As Immediate Past President I serve in a consulting and advisory role, no longer having the day-to-day demands of President. As I devote time and energy to such research, interesting observations arise.
There are four questions for which I sought answers to help with direction on creating and enforcing codes of ethics:
I found a resource that answers all of these questions as well as provides a library of actual codes. The organization is the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions (CSEP) at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. Their web site is http://ethics.iit.edu.
The definition given for what is a code of ethics is lengthy, but nets out as:
“Codes of ethics are to be reflections of the morally permissible standards of conduct which members of a group make binding upon themselves. These standards of conduct often reach beyond or delve deeper into societal morality in order to give guidance to people within a group on issues that are specific to the group.”(http://ethics.iit.edu/codes/Writing_A_Code.html - page 2 of 8)
The answer given to the second question is on-target and speaks directly to the challenges organizations face with a diverse workforce.
“Because different groups are composed of different people with different purposes having differing means of accomplishing differing ends, priorities specific to one group may be incongruous with those of another group.”(Same source as above.)
We each have our own interpretations of what is “right” and what is considered “proper conduct” for our professions, our relationships, and our lives. In a diverse world our disparate interpretations need shepherding into an organizational interpretation and set of standards that reflect the organization’s values and culture.
The answers to the third and fourth questions, including alternative points of view as to the value of having Codes of Ethics, are found at the CSEP site - Codes of Ethics Online links to articles and the codes library.
The library of organizations’ codes is a quality resource supported by grants from multiple bricks-and-mortar libraries and library portals. In a single easy-to-view location you have examples of real codes of ethics for specific types of organizations. One of these should be in line with your organization’s structure and needs, which can serve as a starting point from which to develop (or revise) your own code. I believe in refining the wheel rather than re-inventing it, where possible.
Organizational Development: Defined?
I recently made a discovery concerning OD. While I attribute what I do and on what topics I focus in my business to OD, I felt it prudent in this analyst role to do some research into what the OD profession really entails. Just how is OD formally defined across industries and organizations? I want to be sure my information is relevant for as many of you as possible. I also see queries about OD specialist position descriptions that may be answered within the resources I identify here.
What I am discovering is an interesting mix of views as to what is OD. I am discovering that OD is less a formal, finite, well-defined profession and more a category of practices encompassing the human element of an organization.
This is not to say, by any means, that those of us consultants, trainers, writers, coaches, speakers, HR specialists, and others who are practioners in the OD field lack professionalism. My discovery is that the field itself is being defined and refined as a profession.
The two primary sources I use for research in the OD field – as separate from training and development, or leadership, or personnel legalities and benefits – are the Organization Development Network (ODN) and the Organization Development Institute. One seems to focus more on the nitty, gritty “how tos” of the OD field as a professional association for its practioners (ODN). The other seems to focus on the “what is” in terms of defining the profession, its ethics and competencies, and its certifications (OD Institute). They overlap each other in some areas of their mission such that one seems a part of the other. Both are necessary and of value to the OD field as the profession needs both practice and research resources.
To where does this lead in solving real problems?
For one, it helps to define what professional resources you have at your disposal that provide a community of experts who can help you develop real solutions for your situations and organizations. Training and development has its ASTD. Human resource development as a profession has its SHRM. Leadership as a specialty has its Peter Drucker Institute (otherwise named Leader-to-Leader Institute). Since my focus here is OD, I seek to define resources for the specific field – dare I say profession – of OD. Another direct relevance to the discovery is that as the OD profession is defined and refined, you are presented with a definitive set of competencies and ethics with which to work. You have guidance with which to develop specific OD positions within your organization against which performance results can be measured. I see little “right” or “wrong” in the competencies and ethics definitions I find. They align with what seems common interpretations of OD as a specialty. What I see are resources that help you avoid reinventing wheels and focus more on refining and shaping your unique wheels to fit the vehicles of your organization’s needs.
You also have OD futuring in progess with OD-specific resources. The research and forward-looking efforts of OD-specific organizations beyond the two I mention, as well as learning institutions developing OD specialists, provide you with tools. These tools help you plan and lay the groundwork for your own organization’s business processes that prepare your people to achieve optimal business results.
I will neither endorse nor refute two specific organizations in this forum at the risk of oversight to the many other OD resources at your disposal. I will, however, give you the specific links to resources that you can then research for yourself. You can draw your own conclusions as to their relevance and usefulness to your needs.
The OD Network national organization is at www.odnetwork.org. There are local chapters you can find from the national site.
The OD Institute is at http://members.aol.com/odinst/. Both organizations have membership structures, certifications, publications, communities, and free resources available to you.
