Participation

‘You can take a horse to the water- you can tell horse drinking water  is good for its health -but choice to drink or not to drink water lies with the horse'. This is a statement that I had formed early in my career when I was working on learning and development space.

Over last few months I have realized that this statement is applicable to situations/processes where the efforts and results are not linearly related in space and time and area spread out across time. Career Planning & Execution, and Development are 2 such processes – you make efforts today but results may not come in the same year.

My new tagline on careers is – ‘Performance is ensured over a year while a career direction is built at least over 2-3 years’.

We harp on relevance- we learn or we work towards a career goal if it is relevant for us. We say that the challenge for the resource provider or the manager is to create a space/opportunity for employee to find relevance for him/her.

Let’s say that as a resource provide you have done work on both fronts mentioned above-you and employee have figure out relevant aspects and you have provided required resources.

And then - employee resists turning up to utilize the resource! You are left perplexed! What happened?

Maybe it is relevant but other priorities are at play.

I had been working on creating for last few months a program – working along with intended audience to ensure relevance of resources. On day of session, we clocked around 50% attendance. I wondered whether we could have had at least 60% attendance – that’s what I had expected. But maybe that’s the wrong way to look at this situation. Those who attended seemed vested and involved in day and shared that they found session very valuable.

I saw them taking notes and thinking of how they will make use of learning's back at work.

Leaves me thinking – should we work on participation?

Sometimes we need to drive participation - to ensure people prioritize A over B where both are relevant and where they may not have realized importance/power of A. This is especially the case when A is career/development and B is performance.

Low participation undermines power of an initiative. High participation does not guarantee effectiveness. Relevance is critical.

Hence both relevance and participation are necessary but not sufficient resources by themselves. They go hand in hand to ensure success.

If required participation can be driven. If people choose to stay on as day progresses, that's a possible indication that efforts were worth it.

-

Sourav

Building a Career!

What are next roles I want to work towards?

Well! That's not very difficult to figure out. I can rattle off 2-3 roles that come on top of my mind.

But is identifying and working towards roles an opportune/resourceful way to build a career?

Recently, I came across an alternative approach that resonated with me.

Think of your career in terms of a combination of skills and experiences.

 

What skills and experiences do you want in your next role/s?

I see an advantage of approaching building careers in this fashion.

Thinking of next role gets us fixated on role. We sometimes stop identifying and even evaluating alternatives. Coveted roles are limited and number of contestants are high.

On other hand, when we approach building careers in terms of skills and experiences, we become receptive to a number of opportunities - some of it not obviously apparent.

We might be able to identify emerging opportunities. We might land up identifying multiple opportunities.

A career as a portfolio of skills and experiences! And experiences being much more than just identified roles!

Subsequent question obviously is 'What skills and experiences do you want in your next roles?’  Obviously you will look at what are your career goals in long term, what skills and experiences you want to work towards in medium term, and what skills and experiences you already have.

I refer back to my belief in ‘intentionality’ - ‘ It’s necessary we intentionally and smartly build our portfolio of skills and experiences'

-
Sourav

 

360 Degree Processes!

Over last few months, I facilitated 360 degree feedback process for a few employees.  

They have now received feedback reports and have undergone report debriefing sessions. While some of them seem to have accepted feedback & sound committed to working on them, some other seem compliant & a bit skeptical.

I´ve been thinking - ´As a 360 degree process facilitator, what are things I should/should not focus on?´.

·        Why does an employee want to undergo a 360 degree process?  In this case, the manager had suggested process to employees. I realized employees were enthusiastic, neutral, or skeptical about undergoing process.  I wondered ´Did manager commit a mistake by asking his employees to undergo process? Can these conditions lead to ownership of development process by employee?´ I don´t think manager committed a mistake by suggesting/recommending process. Necessary condition is that the employee feels need for undergoing the process.  How we get to that state is immaterial.

·        When might it be useful for an employee to undergo a 360 degree process?  I think an employee might consider undergoing the process after s/he has spent reasonable time (probably about a year) in a 'new stakeholder network'. This new stakeholder network might arise out of a role change, change in external stakeholder groups, etc.

·        What is feedback used for? If feedback will be used for performance/career decisions, then state it so. If it used for development decisions, then state it so. In either case, follow principle in letter and spirit. 360 degree process becomes dysfunctional when there is divergence between stated intent and actual practice. In previous case, an employee works on feedback because his career is at stake. In later case s/he works on feedback because s/he feels ownership for what´s expressed. Later case is preferred (there would be less ´forced performance´) but either case can bring about movement.

·        Who do we take feedback from? Do we choose only those who are like us (& hence might like us)? Are we willing to take risk to reach out to those who may be neutral about us too?

·        How do we deal with feedback? One frame of reference to look at feedback from is 'How are our actions being interpreted/perceived?´. In this frame, how our actions are interpreted matters more than our actions. Do we have control on way our actions are interpreted? I am not sure of that. But I do think we need to take responsibility for way our actions are interpreted.  When we start thinking about our actions and intentions, defenses might rise up. Under such circumstance, accepting feedback and working on same becomes difficult.

·        An employee signed up for 360 degree process, got his report, and underwent debriefing session too. What next? Where does process go from here? I think it is about whether employee is creating a development plan that has buy in of his superior (where would resources come from?)and is committing to any actions around same.  If these two things are happening, feedback process is possibly producing its outcome.

Have you experienced a 360 degree process? How was your experience like? What works and what does not?

-

Sourav