Before proceeding to the next post on Leadership and Organization Development by Design, some may be wondering why I am including names of theorists and references to their work in my blog. I am so glad for the curiosity.
I have chosen to be a continuous learner in leadership and organization development (L&OD) because knowledge is changing rapidly and one can never know everything. Further, Ryan C. Mack, said the first half of success is knowledge. But, knowledge by itself is not power.
The second half of the success equation is action. So, knowledge plus action equals power. As such, I am as much of a proponent of having a strong theoretical foundation in L&OD as I am for being able to demonstrate flexible and practical application. Why?
Yes, action is the second half of the success equation. It's the effectiveness and efficiency of the actions taken that make the difference. Too often in my career across four industries and working with other colleagues from across the country, I have witnessed or heard of programs designed by well meaning people not delivering anywhere near desired outcomes. I have often wondered what the causes might have been. After all, most of these programs required huge investments of money, time, and energy.
So, I have speculated and asked myself questions such as:
- How many of these failed programs were not established based upon sound design principles and clear outcomes?
- What barriers hindered success? What could have been done to overcome the barriers?
- Are users or clients putting into them what they expect out of them?
- How often are some of these programs favored or not by very influential people and/or managed by people who feel they can't push back because they want to protect or build their careers while hundreds of thousands of dollars continue to be poured into the programs despite the performance evidence or lack thereof?
As a member of the L&OD community, my desire for this blog is to bear my portion of the responsibility for the success of the profession by sharing what I have learned. To be an effective contributor means one must commit to getting and keeping their house in order through continuous learning...academic and experiential. Then, and only then, does contributing make sense.
So, my hope in sharing is to ensure underlying L&OD theory and knowledge of how and when to place resulting programs into practice are not the predominant reasons for failure. As with any profession, whatever the reasons for failure, the impact can ignite a spread of mistrust and disrespect of L&OD practitioners and their work.
A body of research and knowledge exists for L&OD. My hopes are:
- The work is understood and known by those who are "hanging out a shingle" and/or printing L&OD professional titles on their business cards, and/or claiming expertise on their social network profiles, websites, and/or blogs.
- Practitioners are striving to practically apply their knowledge.
- Practitioners have made the commitment to continuous and deep learning in the field, measurement rigor, sharing of learning and even adding to the body of knowledge.
Why is this important? To illustrate...If one needs a triple bypass, then who will be selected to perform the operation? Will the person needing the triple bypass typically select someone to perform the surgery who does not have a proven track record supporting their background and/or experience in performing the surgery? If you said not intentionally, then I agree.
Likewise, if an unproven investment of $50 billion is placed into a development program annually of any type, then do you think a valid question could be who is supporting the investment decisions? Accordingly, while very helpful, would you agree L&OD practice is not just a matter of practitioner popularity/likeability? Further, unless agreed to for very clear, aligned, specific, short-term, and monitored pilots or development activities, would you agree the L&OD practice is not the best place to host consultants who are using the organization as their "guinea pig"?
I am sure this would never happen. Nonetheless, would you also agree L&OD is not the best place to play out influential leaders' career legacy and/or attention grabbing projects and/or political favors for service providers selling products or services that are not aligned with supporting the accomplishment and sustainability of business goals? Further, unless there are agreed upon benefits and clear understanding of risks, would you also agree L&OD is also not the best place to sell services and/or products that undermine or compete with programs already in progress because of the potential breakdowns in program cohesiveness?
.jpg)
Additionally, while mistakes will be made and lessons will be learned, would you agree consistent patterns of fragmentation, errors, and poor quality must be addressed sooner rather than later due to the organization wide impact of most L&OD programs? Do you think there is a chance unsuspecting clients are counting on "expertise" from their consultants and clients may not know when they are not getting the best advice?
The crude reality is months or even years could pass before consultation errors or program failures surface when intentional and well placed metrics are absent. The passage of time may even make course correction almost impossible. By that point, do you think it likely, practitioners/consultants may have already collected their pay checks and may be happily working with their next client as a result of the great recommendation the unsuspecting organization has unwittingly given them? Perhaps, this is why Kellerman suggested leadership development industry consultations come with a warning.
Maybe I am the only one in my career who has observed what I will share next. So, this is purely my perspective and to borrow a Martha-ism, "Lord deliver me from" those claiming to be L&OD practitioners that don't know that they don't know what they are supposed to know. Further, deliver me from those who figure out they don't know what they are supposed to know and decide arrogantly to continue to defy logic and to continue to move forward as they abide in "la-la land".
Accordingly, would you agree it best for practitioners to always be willing to challenge themselves on what they think they know and always be willing to learn and obtain proper support and promptly course correct? The L&OD profession, leaders, and staff within organizations utilizing their services are counting on practitioners' recommendations adding long-term value and establishing a sustainable return on investment of dollars (ROI), energy, and time spent. Value measurement is the hard aspect of the soft work done in L&OD.
Accordingly, do your observations align with the following statement? As much as personal popularity/likeability helps and is needed, the strongest ROI, professional credibility, and trust comes from knowing and being able to put what one knows into practice efficiently and effectively. Is it unreasonable to believe if interventions are well chosen, then their efficiency and effectiveness can be enhanced when there is executive and unwavering support for the removal or reduction of the impact of inevitable barriers? Would you agree common barriers include:
- political "pork" (i.e., anything that is unnecessary and added and maintained per the desires of those with influence)
- political power plays and/or resistance from influential personalities
- organization barriers such as:
- problematic organization structures
- fragmented systems,
- programs, processes, and procedures that clash with or undermine the intervention
As Dr. Kellerman has so eloquently argued, there are 50 billion reasons to get L&OD work right. I tend to agree. I hope we can engage in dialogue about how to do just that.
In the next post, I will get back on schedule by posting Part II: Leadership and Organization Development by Design - Organization Strategy. Until then, ask and answer the right questions in the right way and be the change you want to see!
Phyllis L. Wright, Ph.D.
View my profile on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/phyllislajunewright/
Follow @PhyllWright Twitter
This post contains a Martha-ism. The Martha-ism is "Deliver me Lord". Martha Moten is my husband's barber. As he acts out Ms. Martha's tales, he typically has me laughing hysterically after his visits to the barber shop. Yes, my husband is somewhat of a comedian at times. I am, typically, in tears from laughing so hard. Thanks Ms. Martha for your consistent and humorous stories! Laughter is truly good for the soul!
References:
Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Mack, R. C. (2011). Living in the village. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
No comments :
Post a Comment