M.Ed, HRD: Reflections on my learning

I approached ADLT 606 not knowing quite what to expect.  Memories of planning lessons for high and middle school English classes came surging back to me.  Would this be a similar process?

Well…sort of.  But not exactly.  While lesson planning certainly requires extensive prep work and the identification of attainable objectives and meaningful tasks, it is not generally based on dialogue education (or at least it wasn’t when I completed my M.A.T. five years ago).  Vella’s approach is what makes designing programs for adults a different world from planning lessons for teenagers.  Caffarella also points out some of the organizational/political factors inherent in training and development programs for adults that are not always present in a high or middle school classroom.  Vella (with dialogue education) and Caffarella (with her interactive model) create a foundation for adult learning that differentiates itself from the standard training in secondary ed.

Having read Nancy Dixon’s Perspectives on Dialogue last year, I anxiously delved into Vella’s work.  I was not disappointed.  In my opinion, Vella captures the essence of authentic, lifelong learning.  As I suggested in an earlier post, she is a woman after my own heart.  I feel that this attitude was exemplified beautifully during her interactive session with our class last Tuesday.  Vella teaches us that we must level with our learners, meet them where they are, and recognize that we (facilitators) are learners, too.  I would like to address a few themes which struck me as particularly important this semester– some “takeaways”, if you will:

1)      Context is key.  Adults approach the learning environment from a hugely diverse array of background situations and prior experiences.  They are spouses, parents, care-givers, working professionals, servers of their communities, you name it.  As self-sustaining individuals, adults have an innate need for personal control.  This need must be accommodated in the classroom.  And what better way to achieve that than through dialogue education, in which “the dialogue is not a dialogue between teacher and learner, but among learners, of which the teacher is one” (Vella, 2008, p. xxi).  Unique perspectives need to be recognized and adults must own their learning.  That’s why dialogue is so important—it creates a space where each voice is equally heard, each perspective equally valid, and each participant equally responsible for his/her own learning.

2)       “A learning task is a task for the learner” (Vella, p. 53).  While this may seem like a simple concept, I have often witnessed teachers monopolize activities meant for students.  I think educators, in general, have a tendency to over-control learning situations and therefore take meaningful experiences away from learners.  We must learn to “sit still, keep quiet, [and] pay attention” (p. 56).  If we don’t, we rob learners of the opportunity to interact with one another and construct their own meaning. 

3)      Structure is the essence of design.  I’ve learned that successful program design is an art which calls for careful consideration, meticulous organization, and a sound, reliable structure that enables it to stand on its own.  Adult learning is not a wide-open process.  It requires a solid foundation put into place by a skilled facilitator; one on which learners can then build and develop.  Vella refers to structure as the “backbone” of learning.  Without our backbones, we would be rendered unable to do anything at all.  Such is the educational process– it needs a framework to support the learning within. 

4)      Transfer = learning.  Caffarella and Vella both emphasize the importance of planning for transfer.  I believe transfer is particularly crucial in adult learning scenarios because adults so often enter the learning environment with a specific purpose in mind—i.e. improved on-the-job skills, better understanding of job functions, enhanced leadership abilities, enhanced parenting skills, etc.  If adults can’t take what they’ve learned and effectively use it in an applicable situation, the learning isn’t very valuable.  Most adults, unlike many children/teenagers, expect tangible results from their learning.   Therefore, I believe it is the educator’s responsibility to do everything in her power to ensure there is some “return on investment”.  This means taking transfer into consideration.  

5)      Hands-on exposure leads to greater learning.  The opportunity to design our own programs was hugely beneficial for me as a learner in this class.  That assignment offered me personal, hands-on experience which impacted my learning in a way that a textbook or PowerPoint lecture could never, ever accomplish.  I believe that all learners (not just adults) need to experience what they’re learning in order to best understand and assimilate it.  The more “hands-on”, the better.  As the often quoted ancient Chinese proverb states:  “Tell me and I will forget.  Show me and I may remember.  Involve me and I will understand.”

References

Caffarella, Rosemary. (2002). Planning programs for adult learners: A practical guide for educators, trainers, and staff developers.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vella, J. (2008).  On teaching and learning: Putting the principles and practices of dialogue education into action.  San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.

Vella, J., Berardinelli, P., & Burrow, J. (1998). How do they know they know? Evaluating adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

I must say, I think I am in love with Jane Vella.  This woman shares my fundamental assumptions about what adult education should be, and what role “teachers” should play in the learning process.  Her learner-centered, authentic approach really speaks to me as an educator.  Like Vella, I have a great deal of respect for Paulo Freire and the ideologies he exemplified.   Freire believed in empowering learners and perceiving them as equals, a philosophy which Vella echos in her own practices.  I feel that, in general, adults approach learning situations as independent beings with very diverse contextual influences and specific learning needs.  They have a unique desire to direct their own learning, to be involved, and to apply their learning to real life situations.

Vella emphasizes the importance of context in adult learning, which we have been focusing on in class as a key component of the programming process.   I believe that context is particularly important when it comes to adult learners, as adults have such a diverse range of background experiences and perspectives.  Educators must understand the unique contexts of their students in order to design meaningful programs.  This is where the LNRA (“Eleanor Ray”) comes in.  The “learning needs and resources assessment”  is Vella’s way of connecting with learners.  Here’s what I like most about the the LNRA: it not only provides educators with the crucial data we need to inform our program designs, but it also creates an atmosphere of equity and openness in the learning space.  Vella suggests that it is “evidence of the [teacher's] intention to listen, learn, and to serve the learning of his students” (2008, p. 27).  And this sets up the educational environment for optimal learning.

Here are my favorite quotes so far from On Teaching and Learning:

• “The dialogue is not a dialogue between teacher and learner, but among learners, of which the teacher is one” (p.xxi).  What this means for me:  Teaching equals learning, and teachers are learners too.  We must not forget that.  We are all constantly learning from one another as we each bring new “resources” to the learning environment.
• “No matter what you set out to do today, it will be as part of some kind of team” (p. 4).  What this means for me: We live in a social world which necessitates clear and positive communication, as well as empathy and trust.  We have to work together.
• (On the LNRA) “It is as important for learners to be asked as it is for the data to be used” (p. 22).  What this means for me: Learners need to know that their feelings, opinions, beliefs, backgrounds, etc. are valid.  Having this understanding sets the stage for an open, honest learning environment.
• “There is nothing like the honestly of a spontaneous exchange over a cup of tea or a glass of wine at an introductory party.  What does this celebrate but the potential of dialogue?” (p. 23).  So true.

I was recently struck by the story of ousted Yahoo executive Carol Bartz:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/technology/carol-bartzs-blunt-e-mail-on-firing-raises-issues.html?_r=1&ref=technology  This article is worth a read, if you have time.  Essentially, Ms. Bartz received a phone call from Yahoo’s chairman “relieving her of her duties”.  In keeping with her character, she sent the following email message to all Yahoo employees:

To all,

I am very sad to tell you that I’ve just been fired over the phone by Yahoo’s Chairman of the Board. It has been my pleasure to work with all of you and I wish you only the best going forward.

–Carol

Of course, this email stirred up a lot of controversy and has organizational behavior experts all a-chatter.  Though I admittedly know very little about the history of this situation, or Ms. Bartz’s background with the company, it would appear that she was fired (in part) for being authentic.  She had a reputation for being painfully candid and never censoring herself.   From my perspective, she exemplifies a new generation of professionals who value honesty and have a unique desire to let their personalities come through in the workplace.  As for the email, consider this quote by Jeffrey Pfeffer (OB professor at Stanford):  “The truth helps you improve.  When people lose their jobs and there’s no acknowledgement, the potential for learning is lost.”

Personally, I like her (Ms. Bartz’s) style.

I welcome any feedback that anyone would like to share about this situation…

This semester has been truly eye-opening for me, especially in terms of what I’ve learned about human motivation.  The organizational change strategies we have studied in this class all operate under the assumption that people are inherently capable of mobilizing and inspiring one other, a concept that is largely missing from traditional ideas about consulting.  I was amazed at just how fruitful a “hands-off” facilitator role can be in helping to transform a group.  But having seen it in action, this tactic makes perfect sense to me.  Unlike children, adults have an innate need for self-management and sufficiency.  We’ve passed the point at which taking orders/direction from a “higher-up” is natural or expected.  Of course, most professional adults (particularly members of organizations) live in a world where they must report to superiors on job-related tasks.  However, this does not change our primal desire to control our own lives and environments.  Therefore, placing change in the hands of those who will actually live it seems perfectly logical.  I feel that when we give people this potential, we open up a new world of meaning and encouragement, which in turn fuels true organizational transformation.

Future Search, Open Space Technology, and Appreciative Inquiry

Each of the OD/OT strategies that we’ve examined teaches self-ownership by organizational members.  I thoroughly enjoyed my experiences facilitating a Future Search conference.   While it was often quite difficult to stand back and allow the group to take charge, it was also incredibly gratifying to see the results.  Weisbord and Janoff (2010) have adopted a facilitation philosophy called “self-differentiation”, which essentially means “developing the many parts of oneself” (p. 131) and advocates for facilitators to help employees discover how to go about originating organizational change on their own accord.  In Open Space Technology, Owen (2008) is very similar in his approach, calling for the “total presence [yet] absolute invisibility of [the facilitator]” (p. 107).  Both strategies promote a great deal of self-management by participants, which I feel is a smart way to bring about change.  The more involvement people have with the process, the more meaningful it becomes to them and the more likely they are to follow through.

Future Search is unique in that it focuses on the physical act of change.  Weisbord and Janoff feel that “we move only by moving” (p. 132).  Therefore, a large component of the FS process is to bodily enact the future.  I believe this works for several reasons.  First, it physically moves participants toward their goal point.  This helps them to literally feel the change, which may make creating the change a little bit easier.  Second, it breeds inspiration.  When participants create something together, they may discover new ideas and objectives in the process.  Finally, I believe it is a means of mentally preparing oneself for future occurrences.

Future Search is also unique in that it leads participants through three distinct phases of group consciousness—past, present, and future.  Navigating each of these areas is essential in constructing the foundation for forward advancement.  Before people can change, they need to understand where they’re coming from (where they’ve been) and where they are now.  They also need to understand the common interests that they each share.  One of the key principles of FS is to “focus on future and common ground, not problems and conflicts” (Weisbord & Janoff, p. 58). This attitude is also espoused by practitioners of Appreciative Inquiry (AI).  In both strategies, differences are recognized and valued, but are not “use[d] as the basis of analysis or action” (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2010, p. 18).  AI takes this principle a step further and advocates for focusing specifically on positive common ground items.  Its purpose is to concentrate on the strengths that bring people together, not the issues that divide them.  Doing so helps employees to build strong relationships with one another, which is integral to the healthy functioning of an organization.

FS, OST, and AI all foster authenticity and organizational independence.  Authentic dialog is encouraged in that participants are given the opportunity to express themselves freely and openly in a safe environment.  The facilitator’s job is to ensure that hurtful or divisive conversations do not evolve.  Organizational independence is encouraged in that facilitators make every effort to place power in the hands of participants.  Change is not prescribed; rather it is created and lived by the members of an organization.  The goal of a good facilitator is to help others help themselves.  These three change strategies also promote relationship-building and a “whole system in the room” philosophy.  All strive to bring people from different areas of an organization together.  Relationships and the ability to work in groups are the foundations upon which organizations function, a concept very familiar to Kurt Lewin (Gallos, 2006).  Lewin understood that in order to change an organization, one must start with changing how people relate to one another.  FS does this by mixing participants in different ways and helping folks to see new perspectives.  OST and AI are similar in their approach, both fostering collaboration and teamwork among a “cross-section” of organizational members.

Historical and Modern Perspectives on Organization Development

I was not surprised to find that many of the theoretical underpinnings of OD originated from the work of those who have greatly influenced the fields of education and psychology.  I was already reasonably familiar with Maslow, Skinner, and Levinson (Gallos, 2006).  But Lewin, Lawler & Vroom, Hackman & Oldham, and others were new to me.  The ideas behind expectancy theory (Lawler & Vroom) are quite interesting when compared with Maslow and Herzberg’s need theory.  Instead of viewing human motivation as arising from a set of inherent personal needs, expectancy theory assumes that behavior is influenced by the presence of external rewards and outcomes.  Lawler and Vroom have asserted that employees become highly motivated when they believe that their performance will produce certain valuable rewards, and when they have confidence that they can feasibly continue to perform at the level required to earn those rewards (Gallos, p. 22).

I think it is important to consider the role of both internal and external factors when attempting to understand human behavior.  While I do believe that motivation is inextricably linked to internal needs, I also believe that external rewards are significant, especially in a job situation.  Employees are unlikely to motivate themselves toward positive outcomes if they receive no positive incentive for their efforts.  Hackman and Oldham (Gallos, 2006) do a good job of connecting need theory and expectancy theory with their “work design model”, which identifies perceived meaningfulness of one’s work, perceived personal responsibility for the work, and the availability of performance feedback as critical factors in both employee motivation and job satisfaction (p. 23).  Their assumption is that internal and external factors work in tandem to explain employee performance.

Gallos’ “four-dimensional approach” is a unique modern lens through which to view organizational change and human behavior.  She suggests that organizations operate from four distinct frames/perspectives: structural (rational, formal roles and relationships), human resource (employee’s fit within the organization), political (allocation of power), and symbolic [meaning, purpose, and values] (Gallos, p. 347-348).  I have seen each of these modes used in my job, sometimes simultaneously.  I feel that most organizations (even many non-profits and institutes of higher learning) have a “structural” and/or “political” backbone in terms of how they do things.  Decisions are based on reason, roles are formally delegated and defined, relationships are often highly professional in nature, and resources are allocated so as to keep donors/sponsors happy.  This is traditional business practice.  However, I would vote for a more “human resource” or “symbolic” approach to organizational functioning.  Both of these frames place emphasis on human needs and meaning-making, which are vital to personal well-being.  My philosophy is that a healthy organization starts with happy, healthy individuals.  Therefore, I believe it makes good business sense to create a work environment which enables creativity, flexibility, teamwork, and the development of authentic relationships.

The Change Agent Interview

Completing this assignment was a wonderful way to “pick the brain” of someone who has experienced organizational change firsthand.  I was very fortunate to have gotten an hour with C. Andrews (Executive Director of Human Resources for VCU) to talk about VCU’s long and arduous transitioning to the Banner system.  I would say there were three major takeaways for me after this interview.  First, I learned that change is inevitable.  Organizations must constantly evolve to meet the demands of their employees and the outside world, making change an ongoing, inescapable process.  Ms. Andrews’ philosophy is that you “may as well buckle your seatbelt and go along for the ride!”   Second, I learned that “communication is key”.  Andrews identified an initial breakdown in communication between certain employees and work units as being one of the main hindrances during Banner’s inception.  After these issues were resolved, the change process happened much quicker and with less pain.  Important relationships were also forged that exist to this day.  Finally, Andrews highlighted the value of having backing from top leadership.  She felt tremendously supported by her superiors during the FRS to Banner switch and believes that VCU would not have been able to make this change had it not been for the encouragement and assistance of its administrators.

Moving Forward…

I hope that I can use my learning in this class as a means of helping me to better understand other people.  My current job does not necessarily entail facilitating organizational change.  It does, however, require my ability to empathize and identify with others.  I have several goals moving forward.  First, I hope to embody authenticity in my work and in my professional associations.  I believe this is important because it sets the stage for healthy, meaningful work relationships (vs. artificial ones) and develops mutual trust among colleagues.  It also makes my work more satisfying.  Second, I hope to continue my learning in the OD field.  This class, along with ADLT 610 (Consulting Skills), have helped me to develop a firmer understanding of what it means to be a true “change agent” and have instilled in me a desire to know more about organizational change in general.  Finally, I hope to use the knowledge I’ve gained to eventually become a process consultant.  In this role, I would like to utilize the strategies we’ve seen in this course (particularly Future Search and Appreciative Inquiry) to facilitate organizational change.  I want to be a facilitator who can empower an organization to heal itself.

References

Gallos, J. V. (Ed.). (2006). Organization development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Owen, H.  (2008).  Open space technology: A user’s guide (3^rd ed.).  San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Weisbord, M. & Janoff, S.  (2010).  Future search: Getting the whole system in the room for vision, commitment, and action (3^rd ed.).  San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Whitney, D. & Trosten-Bloom, A.  (2010).  The power of appreciative inquiry: A practical guide to positive change (2^nd ed.).  San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

While reading Owen’s book, I was immediately struck by the many similarities that Open Space Technology shares with Future Search.  Some of the main connections I see are:

1) Both require participants to self-manage and share leadership.

2) Both depend upon the full participation of all group members in order for true action planning to occur.

3) Both prescribe a “hands-off” role for facilitators.

4) Both encourage authenticity in group members.

5) Both encourage diversity of group members, so as to ensure equitable representation from each sector of the organization (“whole system in the room” philosophy).

Participating in a classroom simulation of Open Space was engaging, and I believe I learned a great deal about the concept.  I would love to see this strategy at work with a larger group of people over a longer period of time (as it is designed to be used).  In our context, I think it was somewhat difficult to get a true feel for the complexities of interpersonal exchanges and topic proposals that would occur with a more comprehensive group.  I also did not walk away feeling that an outcome had been defined or an action plan put into place.  I DID, however, feel empowered and free to make personal choices, which I think is a very important motivator for people.  I can imagine that the concept of an “invisible facilitator” may be troubling to some, especially anyone involved in the compensation process.  Some clients may not understand that by doing what appears to be “nothing”, the facilitator is actually enabling group members to be the changes that they envision.

As we embark on our second classroom facilitation (Future Search), I must admit that I’ve have some trepidation regarding logistics of implementation.  Future Search, even more than Open Space Technology, relies upon a fairly significant number of diverse individuals from unique stakeholder groups and a significant amount of time (normally three days) in order to play out as it should.  I am not certain how we’ll manage to create a realistic simulation with 5-10 people and 2.5 hours…but we shall certainly try!  :)  Our team has met several times to develop our plan of  action and we have discussed some of these concerns.  At this point, our primary goal is to come as close as we can and to cover any areas not hit upon during the facilitation when we provide our debriefing session.  I am excited to see how this turns out!

One of the things I thought about most while reading “Mountains Beyond Mountains” was Paul Farmer’s seeming ability to transcend cultural divides.  As I rethink it now, however, I realize that perhaps “transcend” may not be the appropriate terminology.  Maybe “maneuver” is better.  Farmer understands the importance of embedding himself in the Haitian way of life by speaking their language, eating their foods, engaging in their customs, listening to their stories, etc.  He obviously respects the Haitian people deeply and most respect him in return, which is beautiful.  I admire him profoundly for what he’s done.  But the picture  Kidder paints is one in which Farmer is practically deified–loved and esteemed by thousands of people, like a god.  Stories of resistance to his presence are few.  I can’t help but wonder whether this portrayal is somewhat skewed.  Are there no Haitians (even ones who have been helped by the Zanmi Lasante hospital) who resent him?   For being American, for being white, for having money and skills and an education?  And a beautiful Haitian wife?   What Farmer has done for Haiti (and across the globe) is incredible.  But I don’t believe he has necessarily “transcended” cultural barriers.  In his heart, I think he realizes that he will always be a “blan” on some fundamental level–and a “blan” with power, at that.  While PIH absolutely strives to involve the Haitian community by employing its people in key administrative roles within the hospital, ultimate leadership of Zanmi Lasante still belongs to Americans (Partners in Health).   For true, meaningful transformation to take place in Haiti’s health care system, I believe it’s own citizens need to be in full control.  However, this is obviously a very difficult feat to achieve, given the economic and political climate in that country.  Farmer’s team is doing as much as they possibly can to empower the Haitian people, but this is still a situation in which Americans have constructed and implemented an organization on foreign soil.  How does one go about not only changing a country’s access to health care, but also enabling it to take care of itself?

Carl Rogers (1902-1987) once said, “The only person who is educated is the one who has learned how to learn and change.”  In other words, the act of learning is just as important as the knowledge one gains, and so is the ability to use learning as a means of transformation.  As an educator, I believe it is my duty to foster an awareness of the process of learning, rather than simply the end goals.  I also believe that education should move individuals toward change.  Similar to Freire (1921-1997), I feel that education should empower and liberate.  I also believe that learners (particularly adults) should be treated as human beings first, and students second.

Philosophy #1:  Pay attention to the journey.

All too often, educators find themselves caught up in meeting outcome standards.  At the corporate level, training and development specialists are frequently asked to teach task-specific skills (not competencies) with the end goal of increasing production/sales.  At the secondary level, teachers are held to rigorous standards of learning aimed at bringing every child to the same level of proficiency in various subjects.   In this feverish pursuit of attaining standards, I believe much of what is so important about education becomes lost.  When educators only focus on an end goal, the process becomes invisible, and students don’t learn how to learn. I believe that “learning how to learn” entails self-reflection, critical thinking, and empathy– all traits that I hope to foster in future students.  The learning process is crucial because it enables learners to understand learning and to transfer key competencies to other areas of their lives.

Philosophy #2:  Learning can be transformative.

And it should be.  Paulo Freire perhaps knew this better than anyone.  Freire dedicated his life to liberating the oppressed through transformative education in South America.  Paul Farmer (b. 1959) introduced transformative health care practices to Haiti, Peru, Africa, and elsewhere. Today, these practices and ideologies have influenced the treatment/prevention of tuberculosis, AIDS, and malaria throughout the entire world.  Freire believed that people have an inherent right to educate themselves and to use their learning toward revolutionary ends. Similarly, Farmer believes that every person has a fundamental human right to basic health care and an understanding of their illnesses. Both men believe that people should be allowed self-sufficiency, versus being obliged to depend on a “superior” for the fulfillment of basic needs. I agree whole-heartedly.

I believe education should not be considered a privilege– it should be seen as a human necessity. I also feel that learning is an act of independence.  Learning HOW to learn, in particular, is hugely important in one’s passage toward self-reliance.  As educators, I say it is our duty to help people think independently and become capable of helping themselves.  I hope that, as an educator, I can instill in others the understanding that learning really IS power, and that education is a means of changing both ourselves and others.  If we don’t change in response to our learning, the world will remain stagnant, and so will we.

Philosophy #3:  Students are human beings.

Rogers advocated for a “student-centered” approach to learning.  In essence, he called for educators to see students as people, rather than merely students.  I think this is particularly important when working with an adult population.  Adults come to the learning table with an enormous array of experiences, perceptions, opinions, and ideas about “how the world is”.  They have a wealth of prior knowledge under their belts and have been formed by what they’ve encountered in their lives.  I believe adults often have an innate need for autonomy.  They also want to feel needed.   Many have spouses/children, have led work groups, have been faithful friends and neighbors, have served their countries, etc.  Entering into a learning situation can sometimes cause learners to feel vulnerable.  After all, traditional pedagogical practices have taught us that teachers are the authoritative figures and students are somehow “less than”.  I hope to change this ideology.  I want everyone I educate to feel that they are just as important and just as capable as I am.  I want them to understand that they have their own unique strengths and competencies, and that my role is to help them develop new skills/competencies on their own.

Philosophy #4:  The best educators are facilitators of learning.

In keeping with a humanistic approach to teaching, I hope to be an effective facilitator of learning.  I have no interest in imparting my own knowledge to a group of students.  Rather, I hope to serve as a conduit through which students can learn from themselves and others.  The educator’s job, as I see it, is to foster self-competence and self-realization as much as possible.   We are mediators, not managers.

A CONVERSATION WITH PAULO FREIRE

My interview with Cindy Andrews (VCU’s Executive Director of HR) went GREAT.  She was so enthusiastic to talk with me about change and had lots of helpful insights to share.  It was also nice to finally put a face with a name, since I receive so many communications from Cindy but had never actually met her.  Her involvement with the HRS to Banner switchover in 2006 was extensive– she led the effort within the Human Resources division and made most of the strategic decisions.  Here are just a few of the highlights that I took away from our conversation (the quotes are hers):

1) “Change is inevitable, so you might as well go for the ride.  Don’t fear it!”  Cindy feels that many people fear change because they are afraid they cannot learn something new, or will not be successful in a new context.  She would like to see people “embrace learning, since that’s what change really is- a new way of thinking; a learning process.”

2) One mistake she feels VCU HR made with the Banner transition was “celebrating too soon” (which really excited me to hear, because is this not exactly what Kotter talks about!?).  She said that once they “flipped the switch” to change over to the new system, everyone “let out a sigh of relief”; they thought their work was done.  No one anticipated the endless quirks and glitches that would arise and require constant attention.  Even today, HR holds a “Banner team meeting” once each month to discuss changes and to iron out any new problems.

3) She believes that in any change initiative, it’s crucial to have FUN.  She feels this relieves tension and encourages people to get on board.  HR did this by holding weekly contests for “Best New Banner Ideas” and by rewarding everyone who was involved in the process, or who contributed in a significant way.

Tags: ADLT 625

For me, ADLT 610 was probably the most challenging course that I’ve undertaken in the Adult Learning program so far, both in terms of the time commitment required and in terms of the depth and intensity of our assignments.  Because of the challenges involved, however, it was also the most rewarding.   There were moments during the semester when I felt quite overwhelmed.  I became frustrated and disillusioned when it didn’t seem we were getting through to our client.  I also experienced some difficulties balancing the obligations of this class and my very demanding job.  In the end, though, all the hard work paid off.  Big time.

Collaborating one-on-one with a client was a tremendously educational experience for me.  I don’t believe I could have learned the true “in’s and out’s” of consulting without this opportunity.  Being exposed to the perspectives of both Block and Schein and learning about process consulting were also extremely enlightening.  I think the three major takeaways for me with regards to my learning are:

1) Every problem has a human component. During our consulting project, we found it was incredibly easy (and perhaps alluring?) to see only what’s on the surface of a problem.  That was, after all, the only thing our client was seeing and reporting to us.  However, we learned through our readings and class activities that almost every problem has deeper, human implications.  In our case, we quickly realized that our client’s issue lay not so much in the technical problems she had identified, but in her management of those problems.

2) Successful consulting requires the development of  meaningful relationships. Before participating in this class, I had always thought of consulting as strictly business (i.e. the outside consultant comes into an organization, takes a look around, and makes a strategic/logical diagnosis for a hefty fee).  However, this is certainly not the case with  ”process consulting”.  The idea behind process consulting is that the consultant treats the client as a real human being with real human problems and involves the client in every step of the process.  To do this, a relationship must be developed and maintained on both sides.

3) Empathy and compassion are key. I believe this is the case in every aspect of life, not just in consulting.  However, I found it extremely refreshing to read Block and Schein’s takes on empathy.  In our consulting project, I found that empathy and forgiveness were definitely required.  At first, we felt that we were being ignored by our client, or not taken seriously.  However, we later learned that there were many unbeknownst factors at play causing her behavior.  We learned to “walk a mile in her shoes”, so to speak.  This experience was invaluable.

Nancy Dixon’s “Perspectives on Dialogue” really spoke to me.  If there is one thing I need in a workplace environment, it’s authenticity.  I feel very uncomfortable if I perceive my co-workers are wearing facades, or are merely characters in some sort of role-play.  Dixon states that “organizational talk often has a game-like quality that makes it seem unreal” (p. 1).  I have seen this kind of talk in action and I couldn’t agree more with her assessment of it.  I don’t believe that work should be approached as a “game”, but rather as a “collaboration” (kind of like a ropes course).  Games are generally divisive, competitive.  But a collaboration brings people together.  In many ways, dialogue is collaborative talk.

I see dialogue as a very human concept in that it is simple and honest–people communicating as people.  I’ve noticed that office conversations tend to stay in the “safe zone”.  After all, workplaces can be riddled with politics and differences of opinion.  It’s quite natural that people may sometimes feel more secure by not expressing themselves authentically.  However, I believe this kind of thinking leads to a sort of domino effect, starting with the folks in charge.  When the guys/gals on top play the “game”, their subordinates are taught to play it too, and on down the line.  It becomes part of the organization’s culture, and it continues until someone breaks the cycle.  I love this quote by Dixon:  “In order for organizational members to risk engaging in dialogue, the organization must have a climate that supports the development of individuals as well as the development of the organization; yet that climate is unlikely to come into being until individuals are able to engage in dialogue” (p. 32).

I believe that instead of making workplaces safer or more comfortable, a lack of authentic dialogue actually increases perceived danger and uncertainty.  I want to know that my colleagues are real–that I’m dealing with flesh-and-blood human beings with full spectrums of human emotions and unique human experiences that influence their decision-making processes.  That’s comforting to me.  I don’t want to have to constantly guess what my colleagues are thinking or feeling.  It’s scary!  That being said, I do realize that dialogue doesn’t come easy for everyone and that it can’t be quickly implemented into most organizations (especially those whose cultures are not conducive to it).  But I think we can each, as HRD practitioners (and consultants), work to make sure that we are authentic in our professional interactions.  Perhaps, over time, we will begin to rub off on others.