PME 812 - Organizational Learning
Organizations can be viewed through 4 frames of understanding. Each frame has its own focus. The Structural Frame focuses on roles, goals, policies and of course organizational structure. The Human Frame focuses on the people within an organization, how they are utilized and viewed within the organization, their needs, skills and relationships. The Political Frame discusses the power, conflict, competition and politics between people that organizations experience. Lastly the Spiritual Frame looks at the culture, meaning, metaphor, rituals, ceremony, stories and heros of organizations.
Throughout the PME 812 course we learn about these 4 frames and how to apply them in order to analysis organizations, improve leadership and management of organizations and to improve organizational learning of an organization.
The major resource for understanding of the 4 frames was provided by:
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing Organizations : Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (5). Hoboken, US: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com.proxy.queensu.ca
Throughout the PME 812 course we learn about these 4 frames and how to apply them in order to analysis organizations, improve leadership and management of organizations and to improve organizational learning of an organization.
The major resource for understanding of the 4 frames was provided by:
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing Organizations : Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (5). Hoboken, US: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com.proxy.queensu.ca
Learnings and Understandings from the Structural Frame
One of the quickest and easiest ways to understand the structural frame is to look at organizational charts. I have found 3 organizational charts to compare.
First I searched for a hierarchy type chart that reflects the most typical or traditional type of organizational chart (Bolman and Deal, 2013) . This type of chart is used most often used as a visual for top-down structured organizations or a 'simple hierarchy' (Bolman and Deal, 2013). Ones with a single leader at the top and then branches out to various levels of authority and management leading down to the front line employee or clients of the organization. I chose the organizational chart of the Toledo Police Department (http://www.toledopolice.com/organizational-chart2.html ) for this example as I feel it is a clear demonstration of a this traditional form of organizational charts and organizational structure. I also found it interesting that I could clearly envision how this organization worked. It seem logical, sequential and effective. Of course I am not part of the organization so I have no authority to decide if this is a functional structure for this organization. It does seem very traditional structure of police organizations and a quick comparison to Toledo and other American police authorities did reveal that it is a very common structure. I found one close example to demonstrating what an 'all-channel network' (Bolman and Deal, 2013) can look like. The Nova Scotia Department of Health produced an organizational chart to demonstrate the structure of their Prescription Monitoring Board. http://www.nspmp.ca/orgchart.php This chart clearly shows how the different parts of the organization are interconnected and relate with other organizations before finally relaying back to the top, which in this case is the Minster of Health. From this type of chart I can see how this particular organization has a vision to draw together various government agencies for a specific mission. This chart was simple and clear to understand. Thirdly I wanted to look at a more complex organization, perhaps one that did not fit easily into any of the descriptions we have been learning about. I decided to search for organizational charts of the United States Government. With all the controversy in the news lately I have found that I am seriously lacking in understanding of how the American government system works. At first I thought I was just did not understand their electoral process but now with the new president in place I am find I am truly confused as to how the whole organization operates. I found a somewhat helpful organization chart at http://www.netage.com/economics/index-govcharts.html. Using this chart and the exhibits provide by Bolamn and Deal in chapter 5 one could say that the US Government operates like a Dual Authority, but would in this case be a Treble Authority since it has 3 branches. Interestingly one could argue that there is in fact a 'single authority' in the US Government organizational structure. However this is not a person as one might assume but is in fact the constitution. This would be similar to a company putting its vision and mission statement as its final authority on all decision making. Overall I could not find a single organizational chart pertaining to the US government structure that was clear and heightened my understanding of their organizational structure. Some were more simplistic and gave an overview but were not able to demonstrate all of the relationships, connections and flow of 'command' between the various branches and agencies. Others were so complex that I was overwhelmed. Overall I did find that most organizational charts tried to reflect the US government as a traditional two dimensional lines and boxes (Bolman and Deal, 2013) with a leading authority, the constitution, on top. It is clear from these charts that the main mission of the US government as an organization is to uphold the constitution above all else. This could explain why there is so much talk regarding the decisions of the newly elected president in relation to the constitution. |
Learnings and Understandings from the Human Frame
To best understand the Human Frame we must first understand our own Leadership Orientation.
My orientation results: Structural: 18, Human Resource: 20, Political: 9, Symbolic: 13....and the winner is, Human Resource! I am not surprised by my scores. I recognized early on in the course that I tend to mostly focus on the Human side of organizations and I have a specific interest in how organizations approach and treat their employees in order to improve the organization as a whole. I am not sure what this says about me as a person though? Do I have that view because ultimately I care about how I want to be treated? Or perhaps it confirms that I am more of a socialist than an economist? I have been often told that I by focusing on what is good for staff I often overlook what is best for the organization. Perhaps this is true, to a point. It is because of this type of feedback that I was also not surprised to see I scored the lowest in the political frame. I look forward to learning more about the political frame in module 4 so that perhaps I can broaden my perspective and be more inclusive in my views. I find it interesting that out of the 5/7 of us who have posted so far were strongest in the Human Resources frame. I wonder if this trend will continue among our peers? Why do you think that is? Is it truly the most important or popular orientation? I was glad to see that structural came out high for me as well. I have found the structural and human frames to be very closely linked. How an organization is structured seems to very much based on how they view employees and their rolls. Has anyone else found this? Do you have thoughts on this? I would like to understand the similarities and differences of these to frames more so that I can apply this to my own analyses and prevent error in my work. As an aside... did anyone do the activity with anyone else? I had my husband take it and it was really neat to see his view on things. I was thinking I might share it with a few of my colleagues too! It might really help our committee work. The Human frame is definitely the way I most typically view organizations so I enjoyed reading this chapter. I believe in the four core assumptions that were highlighted by Fullet and Mayo (1918, 1933, 1945), specifically the idea that when the fit between organizations is poor, both the organization and its people suffer. How organizations provide for the needs of its employees, whether they be high or low on Maslow's hierarchy, can say a lot about an organization. A whole host of researchers even say that this can even be a predictor of an organization's success (Bolman and Deal, 2008, pg. 140). I am glad that Bolman and Deal pointed out that despite these theories being proved true, since as early as 1771, many organizations do not use these strategies (2008, pg. 141). I feel this is very true and also very puzzling. Why don't organizations consider their employees more? Bolman and Deal make a few suggestions, as to why organizations may struggle with implementation of more humanistic practices, such as lose of power for managers and a lack of time and resources. I think they are right on this point but I would have benefited from a little more on this. The video, The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, is actually one that I have seen before. We the ideas proposed in this video at length in my PME 800 course. Our focus at that time was self-regulated learning, how and why we stay motivated. I found that it was equally fitting for our purposes here. It stands to reason that the more self-regulated (motivated) an employee can be then the more productive their time will be at work, which in turn should create a benefit for the organization in some way. The trick I suppose to ensure that employees are motivated to benefit not only themselves but to benefit each other, the organization and the organization's bottom line (McGregor, 1960, pg. 61). The case study I found to be all too true. In fact it sounds a lot like most meetings I attend in my professional context! Often these meaningful and passionate discussions occur at the end of the meetings. Why? I suspect that this often happens as this is when there is a lull and attendees get a chance to speak more freely. Or perhaps it is because it is only at the end of meetings that managers tend to invite questions or comments (whether that be sincere or simply polite may depend on the organization). In the case study it seems as though staff were not given a chance to make final comments however a select few seized the opportunity. The superintendent recognized, perhaps using his human resource skill, that for many this was a topic they were passionate about and it needed to be addressed. However his more political side noted that many people were done with the day. Addressing the issue you right then would have interested some but alienated others. I think he was right to defer the topic to another day. I also thought it was very wise of him to allow those most passionate on the subject to take the lead on the matter by forming a steering committee. I hope the he followed through with his promises. All too often it has been my experience that when a conversation gets deferred to the next meeting, it often gets tabled again and again causing more disruption to the balance of the organization. Technology Challenge: recommend some educational organizations that you have joined. Here are my favourite educational collaboration groups that I belong to. There are all on Facebook and are in the form of "Facebook Groups" and one is a "buy and sell page". It may seem at first glance that the buy and sell page is not about collaboration but I can tell you that through the sharing of goods the network of teachers supporting teachers and has grown exponentially since the creation of that particular group. Many also use the page to ask questions and seek advice. Teacher's Buy and Sell (Edmonton Area) https://www.facebook.com/groups/409336012603114/?ref=bookmarks The Reggio Emilia Approach https://www.facebook.com/groups/ReggioEmiliaApproach/ Fountas and Pinnel Literacy Community https://www.facebook.com/groups/FountasPinnell/ |
|
Understanding Personalities and their role in the Political Frame
Upon deciding how to reflect and connect the readings, video, case study and the personality test for this post I was initially stumped. The readings and video clearly demonstrate what we need to know about understanding the political frame and the case study provides a concrete example, in the field of education, of how 'politics' can influence an organization. But where and how does the learning of personality types fit in? Why are we looking at personality types within this frame rather than another?
To answer my question I went back to the core of the political frame and the answer was obvious. The political frame views organizations as roiling arenas, hosting ongoing contests of individual and group interests. Coalition members have enduring differences in values, beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of reality (Bolman and Deal, 2013). It proposes that interdependence, divergent interests, scarcity, and power relations inevitably spawn political activity (Bolman and Deal, 2013). In other words, where ever there are people interacting with one another there will be politics. If politics are so closely linked with the view points and interests of people then it makes sense that we should then also study types of people and their varying interests. Furthermore, since how people behave in relations to their view points and interests will create the political environment it only makes sense that we strive to understand these choices and behaviour.
Bolman and Deal explain that enduring differences lead to multiple interpretations of what's true and what's important. Interdependence means that people cannot ignore one another; they need one another's assistance, support and resources (2013). If we want to effectively harness this potential within an organization it would be wise to understand the variety of personalities so that we can best understand and interpret the views of those around us.
How then can we utilize what we have learned about personalities and connect this to what we know of the political frame? In thinking back to the human frame and Maslow's hierarchy we could also say that if we want to best address the self actualization needs of people within an organization then we should understand personalities and what talents and perspectives they have to offer, then place them in the most appropriate positions within the organization. In the political frame an effective manager will work towards balance: developing a direction, building a base of support, and cobbling together working relations with both allies and and opponents (Bolman and Deal, 2013). To build that base of support, teams of allies and understand opponents a manager should have a strong understanding of personalities.
Prior to learning about the political frame in this chapter I viewed 'politics' within an organization as inevitable and negative. In reading Bolman and Deal's version of the political frame however my view point changed. It is inevitable, this is true, however it does not necessarily negative. Constructive politics is a possibility - indeed, a necessary option if we are to create institutions and societies that are both just and efficient (Bolman and Deal, 2013). How positive or negative the political environment of an organization is depends on the nature, skills and effectiveness of its two antagonists, the authorities and partisans.
The book did a great job of showing many examples of how politics can go very right, like in the cases of Aruna Roy in India and Paul Maritz with Microsoft. In contrast I think the case study speaks to an example of how politics can bog down good intentions, similar to how politics affected the missions of Challenger and Columbia. For me these examples demonstrated how if we don't work to understand the agendas and personalities of all the antagonists involved then an organization is more likely to have poor political effectiveness.
To answer my question I went back to the core of the political frame and the answer was obvious. The political frame views organizations as roiling arenas, hosting ongoing contests of individual and group interests. Coalition members have enduring differences in values, beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of reality (Bolman and Deal, 2013). It proposes that interdependence, divergent interests, scarcity, and power relations inevitably spawn political activity (Bolman and Deal, 2013). In other words, where ever there are people interacting with one another there will be politics. If politics are so closely linked with the view points and interests of people then it makes sense that we should then also study types of people and their varying interests. Furthermore, since how people behave in relations to their view points and interests will create the political environment it only makes sense that we strive to understand these choices and behaviour.
Bolman and Deal explain that enduring differences lead to multiple interpretations of what's true and what's important. Interdependence means that people cannot ignore one another; they need one another's assistance, support and resources (2013). If we want to effectively harness this potential within an organization it would be wise to understand the variety of personalities so that we can best understand and interpret the views of those around us.
How then can we utilize what we have learned about personalities and connect this to what we know of the political frame? In thinking back to the human frame and Maslow's hierarchy we could also say that if we want to best address the self actualization needs of people within an organization then we should understand personalities and what talents and perspectives they have to offer, then place them in the most appropriate positions within the organization. In the political frame an effective manager will work towards balance: developing a direction, building a base of support, and cobbling together working relations with both allies and and opponents (Bolman and Deal, 2013). To build that base of support, teams of allies and understand opponents a manager should have a strong understanding of personalities.
Prior to learning about the political frame in this chapter I viewed 'politics' within an organization as inevitable and negative. In reading Bolman and Deal's version of the political frame however my view point changed. It is inevitable, this is true, however it does not necessarily negative. Constructive politics is a possibility - indeed, a necessary option if we are to create institutions and societies that are both just and efficient (Bolman and Deal, 2013). How positive or negative the political environment of an organization is depends on the nature, skills and effectiveness of its two antagonists, the authorities and partisans.
The book did a great job of showing many examples of how politics can go very right, like in the cases of Aruna Roy in India and Paul Maritz with Microsoft. In contrast I think the case study speaks to an example of how politics can bog down good intentions, similar to how politics affected the missions of Challenger and Columbia. For me these examples demonstrated how if we don't work to understand the agendas and personalities of all the antagonists involved then an organization is more likely to have poor political effectiveness.
My Personality: ESTJ "Extravert Thinking with Introvert Sensing"
ESTJ in a Nutshell ESTJs are hardworking traditionalists, eager to take charge in organizing projects and people. Orderly, rule-abiding, and conscientious, ESTJs like to get things done, and tend to go about projects in a systematic, methodical way.
ESTJs are the consummate organizers, and want to bring structure to their surroundings. They value predictability and prefer things to proceed in a logical order. When they see a lack of organization, the ESTJ often takes the initiative to establish processes and guidelines, so that everyone knows what's expected. To learn more about ESTJ and other personality types visit: https://www.truity.com/personality-type/ESTJ |
|
Learning and Understandings from the Symbolic Frame
Theatrics? Who knew?
I was very excited to read Bolman and Deal's section of the book on the Symbolic Frame. This is the frame we all feel deeply but struggle to understand, articulate and to change. In my current school we built our culture from the ground up, team member by team member, but this was not a pace we could maintain and soon the there were more people than the team could influence. Seemingly overnight the culture building escaped us (the original team) and became a far off ideal that we could no longer attain or direct. It became a thing of mystery. We tried to save it, strengthen it with traditions, direct it with ceremonies and showcases but nothing seemed to help. It continued to slide further and further away. Perhaps the answers were in Bolman and Deal's teachings.
In the chapter 12 Bolman and Deal described the symbolic frame in five suppositions (2013, pg. 248). These helped me to develop a terminology and vocabulary for what I had learned through my years working in various educational organizations. In essence, these five suppositions described what I had seen to be true in how organizations operate. I also learned to think of the term 'symbol' in relation to organizations as something much larger than its usual definition. In reference to organizations a symbol can be myth, vision, values, heros/heroines, stories/fairytales, rituals and ceremonies, metaphor, humour and play (Bolman and Deal, 2013).
The examples of culture that followed in chapter 13 also gave me some excellent insight into how these symbols translate into culture. I found this very helpful and powerful knowledge that allowed me to reflect back on my organization and find representations of each form of symbol in my organization, however they were all very weak. It is possible that my organization's cultural woes are due to our lack of attention and development of these symbols. We envisioned the types of symbols we wanted but struggle create and maintain them. Now we are faced with a decision, do we try and steer back to our original culture? Is that even possible? Or do we create something new out of what it has become? This task feels so unattainable to most of the frontline staff in our school. We cannot achieve the culture we want because we are lacking the immense effort, training and cooperation it takes to build it (Bolman and Deal, 2013). Yet even if we did, immense effort, training and cooperation alone rarely create it (quoted in Bolman and Deal, 2013). This leads me to believe that what is needed is a new leader. Someone who can connect with our staff and is willing to care more about the cultural details of our organization and less about the appearance of a culture.
In chapter 14 I was able to relate to the idea that often organizations are not what they appear to be on the surface. I especially connected with how they described that organization structure can act as a theatre. This is very true of my school. Our school is supposed to be a Reggio Inspired school. This is an educational philosophy that is supposed to guide our curriculum and program designs, right down to our daily routines and lesson plans. Much like the video explains the Reggio philosophy is about building environments, both physically and mentally, that allow ideas to mingle. Classrooms should feel relaxed, the pace flexible and conversations allowed to happen. Those little conversational rabbit trails that students begin are seen as a potential platform for inspiring ideas that teachers can then weave curriculum content into. However more often than not the Reggio "philosophy" simply guides teachers to decorate and design classrooms that look Reggio Inspired but in practice are not. The classroom appearance becomes a stage for what ought to be happening but is not.
I think the theatrical analogy in chapter 14 can help explain the case of Ms. Denny as well. Ms. Denny knew that her outward role was to achieve student success. However after having meetings to discuss retention she picked up on the idea that perhaps there was also another role that she was to play in her organization. She felt that perhaps she was to 'perform' at least one student failure per year. She knew that wasn't the outward role she was to play but felt the pressure to conform to the 'unspoken' drama that was expected of each teacher. I don't think she should be punished for this misunderstanding, even though she was being dishonest. Instead I think her and Tom should take a closer look at what led her to believe that there was an unspoken agenda regarding student failure. What part of their culture was leading teachers to believe it was better or expected to change a students grade than to pass them? Sometimes the direction that culture guides us can be as powerful as a leaders direct orders, if not more powerful. When the two do not coincide organizations are in real danger.
I was very excited to read Bolman and Deal's section of the book on the Symbolic Frame. This is the frame we all feel deeply but struggle to understand, articulate and to change. In my current school we built our culture from the ground up, team member by team member, but this was not a pace we could maintain and soon the there were more people than the team could influence. Seemingly overnight the culture building escaped us (the original team) and became a far off ideal that we could no longer attain or direct. It became a thing of mystery. We tried to save it, strengthen it with traditions, direct it with ceremonies and showcases but nothing seemed to help. It continued to slide further and further away. Perhaps the answers were in Bolman and Deal's teachings.
In the chapter 12 Bolman and Deal described the symbolic frame in five suppositions (2013, pg. 248). These helped me to develop a terminology and vocabulary for what I had learned through my years working in various educational organizations. In essence, these five suppositions described what I had seen to be true in how organizations operate. I also learned to think of the term 'symbol' in relation to organizations as something much larger than its usual definition. In reference to organizations a symbol can be myth, vision, values, heros/heroines, stories/fairytales, rituals and ceremonies, metaphor, humour and play (Bolman and Deal, 2013).
The examples of culture that followed in chapter 13 also gave me some excellent insight into how these symbols translate into culture. I found this very helpful and powerful knowledge that allowed me to reflect back on my organization and find representations of each form of symbol in my organization, however they were all very weak. It is possible that my organization's cultural woes are due to our lack of attention and development of these symbols. We envisioned the types of symbols we wanted but struggle create and maintain them. Now we are faced with a decision, do we try and steer back to our original culture? Is that even possible? Or do we create something new out of what it has become? This task feels so unattainable to most of the frontline staff in our school. We cannot achieve the culture we want because we are lacking the immense effort, training and cooperation it takes to build it (Bolman and Deal, 2013). Yet even if we did, immense effort, training and cooperation alone rarely create it (quoted in Bolman and Deal, 2013). This leads me to believe that what is needed is a new leader. Someone who can connect with our staff and is willing to care more about the cultural details of our organization and less about the appearance of a culture.
In chapter 14 I was able to relate to the idea that often organizations are not what they appear to be on the surface. I especially connected with how they described that organization structure can act as a theatre. This is very true of my school. Our school is supposed to be a Reggio Inspired school. This is an educational philosophy that is supposed to guide our curriculum and program designs, right down to our daily routines and lesson plans. Much like the video explains the Reggio philosophy is about building environments, both physically and mentally, that allow ideas to mingle. Classrooms should feel relaxed, the pace flexible and conversations allowed to happen. Those little conversational rabbit trails that students begin are seen as a potential platform for inspiring ideas that teachers can then weave curriculum content into. However more often than not the Reggio "philosophy" simply guides teachers to decorate and design classrooms that look Reggio Inspired but in practice are not. The classroom appearance becomes a stage for what ought to be happening but is not.
I think the theatrical analogy in chapter 14 can help explain the case of Ms. Denny as well. Ms. Denny knew that her outward role was to achieve student success. However after having meetings to discuss retention she picked up on the idea that perhaps there was also another role that she was to play in her organization. She felt that perhaps she was to 'perform' at least one student failure per year. She knew that wasn't the outward role she was to play but felt the pressure to conform to the 'unspoken' drama that was expected of each teacher. I don't think she should be punished for this misunderstanding, even though she was being dishonest. Instead I think her and Tom should take a closer look at what led her to believe that there was an unspoken agenda regarding student failure. What part of their culture was leading teachers to believe it was better or expected to change a students grade than to pass them? Sometimes the direction that culture guides us can be as powerful as a leaders direct orders, if not more powerful. When the two do not coincide organizations are in real danger.
Applying the Four Frame Analysis for Organizational Learning
The following is an example of how one could use the four frame analysis approach to advance organizational learning: http://prezi.com/i-slwgedj7q2/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy
Facebook and Organizational Learning
How organizations use Facebook to learn but also how their use of Facebook is evidence of organizational learning.
As we all know and have experienced nearly every organization now has a Facebook page. Facebook has become one of the main ways organization market, network, communication, serve customers, grow business and do commerce. One could say that the use of Facebook is evidence of organizational learning in and of itself. To demonstrate how different sectors are using Facebook I would like to share examples of two organizations and their relationship with Facebook.
Our first example is educational organizations. Facebook is used by school divisions and those within the school division organization in a variety of positive ways. The school division and each school within the division may have pages that they use to promote themselves to potential families, communicate initiatives and day to day information with current families and employees, and to create a social media platform to invite others to communicate with them in a way that is accessible. Teachers and other staff, may use Facebook to communicate with one another outside of work for social reasons, or to connect with each other on a professional level by building a network of support and idea sharing. They may also use Facebook to connect with students and families to support learning and programming for students. Furthermore many people within educational organizations are creating Facebook pages for the purpose of sharing and selling resources. "Teacher buy and sell" pages have become increasingly popular among teachers in common geographical areas and are building bonds between professionals outside of their own schools. Teachers are also extending their professional networking on Facebook by creating and joining Facebook groups that are designed to support, inspire and promote certain educational philosophies, practices or techniques. These groups really help teachers learn and advance their practice.
Facebook has provided various educational organizations a unique opportunity to observe one another through their Facebook pages and their organizations members' activity on Facebook. It is through this observation of seeing what each other is doing, looking at and discussing that provides the opportunity for organizational learning. The 'hey did you see what the other school division posted on their page' discussion that result from the observation are what have the potential to drive organizational learning.
However, educational organizations around the world have also quickly learned how to use Facebook to 'police' their organizational personnel and each other. School divisions, school administration, parents, students and even the general public now use Facebook to monitor those within educational organizations, such as teachers, and hold them accountable for their actions both online and offline. Stories of teachers being removed from classrooms due to content they posted on Facebook is now a regular news story in the media. These stories are also whispered in staff rooms and told to new staff in hopes of scaring them straight. Parents have even used Facebook to slander schools, school boards, and teachers by sharing stories or pictures of negative interactions they have had. Facebook has also created a new platform for students to collaborate and socialize but also to bully and threaten fellow students, which has sometimes even prompted schools to monitor student Facebook pages in an effort to deal with the problem.
Facebook can support organizational learning through its wonderful possibilities of connecting educational organizations for networking and enrichment. We can also see evidence of organizational learning by educational organizations in the way that they have learned to use positively use Facebook and in how they are learning to deal with the negative side of it as well.
Our second organization is a small business, located in a small town. The owner of the business first began using Facebook to promote the small business on his personal page, more as a personal celebration and announcement of a new life adventure. Eventually he created a business Facebook page as well. Then the owner of the page became aware of a new Facebook group for the community. Several new moms began a Facebook group so that they could meet other new moms in their area and share advice about their young families. Very quickly the group became popular among many in the town, not just moms. The group began to share more than just parenting tips and started sharing advice about anything and everything. One of the main topics among 'the moms' was where to shop, who to hire and what to buy. Since the group was located in a small town their impact the referrals was having on the local economy was astounding. The owner of the business, also a member of the group, began to see the impact the group was having on business and began to listen to, learn and understand the needs of the group. He began to interact and build relationships with 'the moms' on the page by sharing in their woes, celebrating their achievements and sharing advice. He gained their respect and trust and soon some began to hire his business to do work for them.
He also adjusted his business style and practices to reflect the values the group was portraying. As he did work in the community his work started to be recommended on the group page by 'the moms'. He shared some of his work on his Facebook page and this was shared around the group by 'the moms'. When the group expanded to included a Facebook "buy and sell" and a "rant and rave" page. The business owner joined these as well and monitored the page to learn what potential customers were looking for and what they were 'ranting and raving' about. With this information he was able to adjust his business and respond according to the expectations of clients.
Facebook has provided business organizations, especially small businesses, with the unique ability to not only promote themselves but to create a network of people who will knowingly and unknowingly promote their business for them. Facebook also provides business organizations with the opportunity to research and respond to their target markets. This research is organizational learning, and their response to their research is the evidence of that organizational learning.
Facebook has certainly proven itself to be a way in which organizations of any type, should they choose to, can advance their organizational learning.
As we all know and have experienced nearly every organization now has a Facebook page. Facebook has become one of the main ways organization market, network, communication, serve customers, grow business and do commerce. One could say that the use of Facebook is evidence of organizational learning in and of itself. To demonstrate how different sectors are using Facebook I would like to share examples of two organizations and their relationship with Facebook.
Our first example is educational organizations. Facebook is used by school divisions and those within the school division organization in a variety of positive ways. The school division and each school within the division may have pages that they use to promote themselves to potential families, communicate initiatives and day to day information with current families and employees, and to create a social media platform to invite others to communicate with them in a way that is accessible. Teachers and other staff, may use Facebook to communicate with one another outside of work for social reasons, or to connect with each other on a professional level by building a network of support and idea sharing. They may also use Facebook to connect with students and families to support learning and programming for students. Furthermore many people within educational organizations are creating Facebook pages for the purpose of sharing and selling resources. "Teacher buy and sell" pages have become increasingly popular among teachers in common geographical areas and are building bonds between professionals outside of their own schools. Teachers are also extending their professional networking on Facebook by creating and joining Facebook groups that are designed to support, inspire and promote certain educational philosophies, practices or techniques. These groups really help teachers learn and advance their practice.
Facebook has provided various educational organizations a unique opportunity to observe one another through their Facebook pages and their organizations members' activity on Facebook. It is through this observation of seeing what each other is doing, looking at and discussing that provides the opportunity for organizational learning. The 'hey did you see what the other school division posted on their page' discussion that result from the observation are what have the potential to drive organizational learning.
However, educational organizations around the world have also quickly learned how to use Facebook to 'police' their organizational personnel and each other. School divisions, school administration, parents, students and even the general public now use Facebook to monitor those within educational organizations, such as teachers, and hold them accountable for their actions both online and offline. Stories of teachers being removed from classrooms due to content they posted on Facebook is now a regular news story in the media. These stories are also whispered in staff rooms and told to new staff in hopes of scaring them straight. Parents have even used Facebook to slander schools, school boards, and teachers by sharing stories or pictures of negative interactions they have had. Facebook has also created a new platform for students to collaborate and socialize but also to bully and threaten fellow students, which has sometimes even prompted schools to monitor student Facebook pages in an effort to deal with the problem.
Facebook can support organizational learning through its wonderful possibilities of connecting educational organizations for networking and enrichment. We can also see evidence of organizational learning by educational organizations in the way that they have learned to use positively use Facebook and in how they are learning to deal with the negative side of it as well.
Our second organization is a small business, located in a small town. The owner of the business first began using Facebook to promote the small business on his personal page, more as a personal celebration and announcement of a new life adventure. Eventually he created a business Facebook page as well. Then the owner of the page became aware of a new Facebook group for the community. Several new moms began a Facebook group so that they could meet other new moms in their area and share advice about their young families. Very quickly the group became popular among many in the town, not just moms. The group began to share more than just parenting tips and started sharing advice about anything and everything. One of the main topics among 'the moms' was where to shop, who to hire and what to buy. Since the group was located in a small town their impact the referrals was having on the local economy was astounding. The owner of the business, also a member of the group, began to see the impact the group was having on business and began to listen to, learn and understand the needs of the group. He began to interact and build relationships with 'the moms' on the page by sharing in their woes, celebrating their achievements and sharing advice. He gained their respect and trust and soon some began to hire his business to do work for them.
He also adjusted his business style and practices to reflect the values the group was portraying. As he did work in the community his work started to be recommended on the group page by 'the moms'. He shared some of his work on his Facebook page and this was shared around the group by 'the moms'. When the group expanded to included a Facebook "buy and sell" and a "rant and rave" page. The business owner joined these as well and monitored the page to learn what potential customers were looking for and what they were 'ranting and raving' about. With this information he was able to adjust his business and respond according to the expectations of clients.
Facebook has provided business organizations, especially small businesses, with the unique ability to not only promote themselves but to create a network of people who will knowingly and unknowingly promote their business for them. Facebook also provides business organizations with the opportunity to research and respond to their target markets. This research is organizational learning, and their response to their research is the evidence of that organizational learning.
Facebook has certainly proven itself to be a way in which organizations of any type, should they choose to, can advance their organizational learning.
Digital About Me
I chose the following cartoon because I find it so odd that in the teaching profession we spend so much in training, doing in services/PD and having meetings in an effort to learn how to best prepare students and our environments for learning. We are always asked to reflect and value all the unique ways that students learn and are given protocols to ensure that we meet every student’s needs emotionally, physically and academically. Yet, when it comes to teaching and support staff their emotional, physical and academic goals are often ignored or neglected because of new initiatives, scheduling or budget reasons, and yet are expected to perform at their very best. I often wonder how could school divisions and school based leadership teams better address the needs and wants of teachers in relation to non-negotiables like time and budgets?
Discussion: Exploring views on organizations and leadership
Ecosystems - Monique Webb
Organizations are much like ecosystems where all things are interconnected and the goal is for everyone to mutually benefit one another while serving a higher purpose of the continuation of all species. It can accomplish what it was intended to do with its many parts and complex structure by having a solution for every need. However if one area of the ecosystem fails or becomes out of balance then has the potential to collapse the whole system. Mars, Bronstein and Lusch analyze the effectiveness of this metaphor in their article, “The value of a metaphor: Organizations and ecosystems” (2012). The article does describe some flaws in this metaphor however in the end it describes how it concludes that potential implications for developing a robust framework for identifying, analyzing, and managing organizations in an increasingly complex and dynamic world are substantial (2012, pg. 279).
As I read chapter one of Bolman and Deal’s text I realized that typically I view organizations, especially those that I am involved with, through the human resource lens which “emphasizes understanding people - their strengths and foibles, reasons and emotions, desires and fears.” (2013). This has shaped my opinion that great leaders draw upon the experience and expertise it has within its whole organization and they constantly look for who might best support whatever the need is at the time. They earn respect through their actions and choices and uphold others to the same standard. They take time to be part of the organization at all levels while still maintaining their authority.
The human frame has also shaped my view of what it means for people to ‘get ahead’ in an organization. I share Jill’s view that I have never thought of myself as wanting to get ahead in an organization. Since I view organizations as an ecosystem there is no inherent need to advance, only for each part to play their role. Some roles are at top and some the middle but no one part is truly more important than the other. My desire within in an organization is only to become recognized and utilized for my skills, perspectives and expertise and for what I can contribute to the betterment of the organization. I feel I have ‘advanced’ in my organization when I am called upon to use my skill set to benefit others. This personal belief reinforces my view that good leaders and managers are those that draw upon the talents within their organization.
Furthermore I believe that any person within an organization that wants to influence the organization should must listen and be attentive to the many layers of the organization. They would first observe and learn, as neutrally as possible, what is happening in the organization before choosing the most strategic path to influence the organization. To do this one must have the ability to reframe, “Those who master reframing report a sense of choice and power. Managers are imprisoned only to the extent that their palette of ideas is impoverished.” (Bohman and Deal, 2013, pg. 19).
Reference: Mars, Matthew M., Judith L. Bronstein, and Robert F. Lusch. "The value of a metaphor: Organizations and ecosystems." Organizational Dynamics 41.4 (2012): 271-280. https://www.sdlogic.net/uploads/3/4/0/3/34033484/mars_bronstein_lusch_og_dyn.pdf
As I read chapter one of Bolman and Deal’s text I realized that typically I view organizations, especially those that I am involved with, through the human resource lens which “emphasizes understanding people - their strengths and foibles, reasons and emotions, desires and fears.” (2013). This has shaped my opinion that great leaders draw upon the experience and expertise it has within its whole organization and they constantly look for who might best support whatever the need is at the time. They earn respect through their actions and choices and uphold others to the same standard. They take time to be part of the organization at all levels while still maintaining their authority.
The human frame has also shaped my view of what it means for people to ‘get ahead’ in an organization. I share Jill’s view that I have never thought of myself as wanting to get ahead in an organization. Since I view organizations as an ecosystem there is no inherent need to advance, only for each part to play their role. Some roles are at top and some the middle but no one part is truly more important than the other. My desire within in an organization is only to become recognized and utilized for my skills, perspectives and expertise and for what I can contribute to the betterment of the organization. I feel I have ‘advanced’ in my organization when I am called upon to use my skill set to benefit others. This personal belief reinforces my view that good leaders and managers are those that draw upon the talents within their organization.
Furthermore I believe that any person within an organization that wants to influence the organization should must listen and be attentive to the many layers of the organization. They would first observe and learn, as neutrally as possible, what is happening in the organization before choosing the most strategic path to influence the organization. To do this one must have the ability to reframe, “Those who master reframing report a sense of choice and power. Managers are imprisoned only to the extent that their palette of ideas is impoverished.” (Bohman and Deal, 2013, pg. 19).
Reference: Mars, Matthew M., Judith L. Bronstein, and Robert F. Lusch. "The value of a metaphor: Organizations and ecosystems." Organizational Dynamics 41.4 (2012): 271-280. https://www.sdlogic.net/uploads/3/4/0/3/34033484/mars_bronstein_lusch_og_dyn.pdf
Connecting to the Organizational Learning Community via Blogs:
Monique - Blogging
Blog 1: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/13/the-eight-metaphors-of-organization/
The first blog I examined was "ribbonfarm" . On this blog the author, Venkatesh Rao, wrote about The Eight Metaphors of Organization from Gareth Morgan’s Images of Organization. It seems that using metaphors for organizations is a large part of the practice among experts in Organizational Theory. I decided to read this blog and share it here because it paralleled the readings we are doing by Bolman and Deal and also shares the view of this course that organizations should not be viewed from a single frame but by many frames. Rao shares this view and explains, "...99% of organizational conversations stay exclusively within one metaphor. Worse, most people are permanently stuck in their favorite metaphor and simply cannot understand things said within other metaphors" (July 13, 2010). In this post Rao also adds his personal views on the usefulness and limitations on these various metaphors.
Blog 2: http://hub.n2growth.com/organizational-theory/
The author Mike Myatt has a resume that screams success and his regarded as America's top CEO coach (Nhub, N2Growth, 2016) and he just happened to have a post about organizational charts! How fitting as this was one of our assignments for this module. Having done the organizational charts exercise and reflection I found I had enough familiarity with the concept to understand what Myatt was talking about. I enjoyed his thoughts regarding the purpose and usefulness of organizational charts. He explains to readers that "It is not the “type” or the “style” of chart used that works or doesn’t, rather it is the process of design that was used in creating the org chart that will determine its usefulness, functionality and adoption" (Myatt, 2016).
One of the leading study questions for this module is: Do you think that flattened organizations can be just as productive and effective as hierarchal organizations? In this post Myatt offers his expertise on subject and offers his best advice which "is to build a very flat organization, and where the purpose of any framework is to expand relationships not limit them, and to drive complex decisioning down as low as possible within the organization structure" (Myatt, 2016). With the expertise and experience that Mr. Myatt has I find myself inclined to consider his opinion very strongly.
I also really enjoyed his process of organization through an order of operation that he developed in 1988. “Values should underpin Vision, which dictates Mission, which determines Strategy, which surfaces Goals, that frame Objectives, which in turn drives the Tactics that tell an organization what Resources, Infrastructure and Processes are needed to support a certainty of execution.” (Mike Myatt 1988)
Blog 3: https://colleensharen.wordpress.com/category/organizational-behaviour/
I chose this third blog for several reasons: the author is Canadian, has a wealth of high profile experience and is a woman. This spiked my interest mostly because every other blog I looked at was written by an American man. Since we are working on learning how to view things from different frames I decided to explore how a Canadian woman approaches blogging about Organizational theory. I reviewed her whole blog, not just a single post. Each one of her posts seems relevant to some aspect of the course or Bolman and Deal's text that we have been reading. Some of the topics that caught my eye were "Managing Annoying People", "Leadership Lessons from Buzz Lightyear" and "Silence in the Workplace". The later speaks well to the Helen Demarco case and offers some interesting insights to why she may have made the choices that she did.
I will be saving this blog for future reading... if and when I ever have some 'free time'.
Blog 1: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/13/the-eight-metaphors-of-organization/
The first blog I examined was "ribbonfarm" . On this blog the author, Venkatesh Rao, wrote about The Eight Metaphors of Organization from Gareth Morgan’s Images of Organization. It seems that using metaphors for organizations is a large part of the practice among experts in Organizational Theory. I decided to read this blog and share it here because it paralleled the readings we are doing by Bolman and Deal and also shares the view of this course that organizations should not be viewed from a single frame but by many frames. Rao shares this view and explains, "...99% of organizational conversations stay exclusively within one metaphor. Worse, most people are permanently stuck in their favorite metaphor and simply cannot understand things said within other metaphors" (July 13, 2010). In this post Rao also adds his personal views on the usefulness and limitations on these various metaphors.
Blog 2: http://hub.n2growth.com/organizational-theory/
The author Mike Myatt has a resume that screams success and his regarded as America's top CEO coach (Nhub, N2Growth, 2016) and he just happened to have a post about organizational charts! How fitting as this was one of our assignments for this module. Having done the organizational charts exercise and reflection I found I had enough familiarity with the concept to understand what Myatt was talking about. I enjoyed his thoughts regarding the purpose and usefulness of organizational charts. He explains to readers that "It is not the “type” or the “style” of chart used that works or doesn’t, rather it is the process of design that was used in creating the org chart that will determine its usefulness, functionality and adoption" (Myatt, 2016).
One of the leading study questions for this module is: Do you think that flattened organizations can be just as productive and effective as hierarchal organizations? In this post Myatt offers his expertise on subject and offers his best advice which "is to build a very flat organization, and where the purpose of any framework is to expand relationships not limit them, and to drive complex decisioning down as low as possible within the organization structure" (Myatt, 2016). With the expertise and experience that Mr. Myatt has I find myself inclined to consider his opinion very strongly.
I also really enjoyed his process of organization through an order of operation that he developed in 1988. “Values should underpin Vision, which dictates Mission, which determines Strategy, which surfaces Goals, that frame Objectives, which in turn drives the Tactics that tell an organization what Resources, Infrastructure and Processes are needed to support a certainty of execution.” (Mike Myatt 1988)
Blog 3: https://colleensharen.wordpress.com/category/organizational-behaviour/
I chose this third blog for several reasons: the author is Canadian, has a wealth of high profile experience and is a woman. This spiked my interest mostly because every other blog I looked at was written by an American man. Since we are working on learning how to view things from different frames I decided to explore how a Canadian woman approaches blogging about Organizational theory. I reviewed her whole blog, not just a single post. Each one of her posts seems relevant to some aspect of the course or Bolman and Deal's text that we have been reading. Some of the topics that caught my eye were "Managing Annoying People", "Leadership Lessons from Buzz Lightyear" and "Silence in the Workplace". The later speaks well to the Helen Demarco case and offers some interesting insights to why she may have made the choices that she did.
I will be saving this blog for future reading... if and when I ever have some 'free time'.
An Exercise in Identifying Needs
The Bubble. What would you bring if you had to live in a bubble for a year?
- Monique Webb
I took the approach that I would need to bring many survival items, recognizing that I will need to meet my own basic physiological and safety needs. My fourth item was also a mattress, followed by a pillow and blankets for items five and six. Sleep is a very important basic need we often forget about and take for granted. In my teaching position I am all too aware of how lack of rest can affect us. When I am teaching students to read I can easily identify when a child is lacking in sleep and I am always sure to follow up with parents when I suspect this. Lack of sleep can often look like a student is struggling with learning when in fact they are just tired. Often I provide places for students to rest or nap in my classroom, especially in the fall when the students are still adjusting to routines and being at school all day.
To help address the basic needs and attempt to reach the psychological needs of students in my class I created the 'buddy lunch' program. There are several students in my class who come to school without breakfast or lunch. The school has a breakfast club and lunches for these students but I found for my younger students something was missing. The basic food was not enough. The lunches were quick pantry items that lacked variety and they looked and felt anonymous. The students in my class who were eating the lunches were being fed but were not experiencing the same lunch experience as their peers. They seemed unhappy.
I recruited several parents in my class to make a 'buddy lunch' to send in one day a week. This lunch could be an exact copy of their own child's lunch. They send the lunch to school in a lunch kit just as they would for their own child. I then distribute this lunch to the students in need. There is no need for them to go to the office for their lunch or have it out of a brown paper bag. The fruit and veggies are all cut up, sometimes there are leftovers from family meals and there is lots of variety in tastes, color and textures. The students are able to try new foods but also now look forward to having a 'normal' lunch with their friends. They are now more equal with their peers and can talk about likes and dislikes in foods and how they like their sandwiches cut etc. They feel more of a sense of belonging now that they have the same as what the other students have.
Going back to the bubble and my needs I knew that I am not the kind of person who can go very long without having emotional connections. I need to connect with others. So I listed items that would allow me to connect with the others, a computer, my family and a dog. Even if my family couldn't come I would have brought a photo of them. I think it is important for people within organizations to not only be aware of Maslow's hierarchy but to recognize that within each step of the pyramid there are levels of need. I know that not everyone shares my need to belong, or at least their need is not as high as mine. I have learned over the years to identify the level of need for belonging that my co-workers have. I seek out those who, like me, enjoy collaborating and want to create bonds. These are people who I know will be easy allies for me and I look forward to working with them. I also want to respect those who do not need such connections to be happy and try to ensure to give them space and not try to force them into projects or conversations with those of us who need to connect more. I know this can be overwhelming for those people and can create stress and conflict.
In my bubble I knew that food of course would be an issue and I didn't want to assume that all the food would be provided, certainly one can't pack a year’s supply of fresh fruit and veggies. So I decided that I would need garden supplies. For me this would fill a basic physiological need however it would also fill my esteem and maybe even my self actualization needs if it went really well! I am not an excellent gardener but I have a desire to learn more and to try and be better. Being alone in a bubble I knew that I would need a project that would keep my body and mind busy. It was my hope that by taking on the task of creating a mini garden based ecosystem in my bubble it would help me fulfill my higher needs on the pyramid.
I have always appreciated working under the leadership of those wise enough to set aside the rules or practices that sometimes prevent us from making allowances to meet one another's needs. This year our school struggled greatly with student behaviour. Students were even being dangerous and hurtful at recess. The leadership felt the best way to deal with the problem was to have all staff on supervision at all times. However this left staff's basic needs not being met. Many staff did not have time to eat or use the bathroom let alone rest. Within a few days the morale of the school dropped drastically and staff absenteeism went up over the next several weeks. The staff recognized that their basic needs were not being met which was putting them at risk for illness but also that they would not be able to do their job effectively if they could not address their basic needs throughout the day. After much appeal the supervision was reduced.
I think we can all easily agree that a person’s basic needs must be met in order for them to be able to perform in an organization. I think most of us would do our best to help anyone in our organization who was struggling to meet their basic needs. However, how often do we think about meeting our colleagues other needs? Do leaders watch for which of their organization's members feel like they belong? We all know about office 'cliques' but do we really know what they effects of being on the outside of the office 'clique' are?
I think that strong organizations have leaders and programs in place that work to address all levels of Maslow's hierarchy. Forbes.com reported the top ten outstanding things employers do for their employees: they offer flexible hours and/or the ability to work from home some of the time, they are easy-going about breaks, they install feedback systems up, down and across the organization, they get rid of all unnecessary personnel policies, they make their recruiting process fun and friendly, instead of formal, "grade-based" performance reviews they use one-on-one planning and goal-setting meetings to sync up with each team member, they employ a reasonable, human dress code that isn't detailed down to the level of the individual stitches, they respect their team members' obligations outside of work, they give their teammates as much latitude as they possibly can, they make every "win" a shared win, in every respect -- their employees share in the glory and in the riches, too (L. Ryan, July 2016, Forbes.com). Many of these items work to address the basic, psychological and self-fulfillment needs of their employees. They address basic needs of comfort, while protecting everyone’s sense of belonging and providing opportunities for employees to reach their full potential.
This was an interesting exercise. I immediately began to analyze the situation and ask a thousand questions. What counted as an 'item'? Would there be danger in the bubble? Would there be light? I became increasingly worried about choosing the 'wrong' items. I guess I could say that based on Maslow's hierarchy my basic needs must are being met and thus it is allowing me to be concerned with more Psychological - esteem needs. I certainly have a 'need' to succeed and feel accomplished with this assignment.
Reference:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/07/06/ten-things-outstanding-employers-do-for-their-employees/#3d9246e65e4d
- Monique Webb
I took the approach that I would need to bring many survival items, recognizing that I will need to meet my own basic physiological and safety needs. My fourth item was also a mattress, followed by a pillow and blankets for items five and six. Sleep is a very important basic need we often forget about and take for granted. In my teaching position I am all too aware of how lack of rest can affect us. When I am teaching students to read I can easily identify when a child is lacking in sleep and I am always sure to follow up with parents when I suspect this. Lack of sleep can often look like a student is struggling with learning when in fact they are just tired. Often I provide places for students to rest or nap in my classroom, especially in the fall when the students are still adjusting to routines and being at school all day.
To help address the basic needs and attempt to reach the psychological needs of students in my class I created the 'buddy lunch' program. There are several students in my class who come to school without breakfast or lunch. The school has a breakfast club and lunches for these students but I found for my younger students something was missing. The basic food was not enough. The lunches were quick pantry items that lacked variety and they looked and felt anonymous. The students in my class who were eating the lunches were being fed but were not experiencing the same lunch experience as their peers. They seemed unhappy.
I recruited several parents in my class to make a 'buddy lunch' to send in one day a week. This lunch could be an exact copy of their own child's lunch. They send the lunch to school in a lunch kit just as they would for their own child. I then distribute this lunch to the students in need. There is no need for them to go to the office for their lunch or have it out of a brown paper bag. The fruit and veggies are all cut up, sometimes there are leftovers from family meals and there is lots of variety in tastes, color and textures. The students are able to try new foods but also now look forward to having a 'normal' lunch with their friends. They are now more equal with their peers and can talk about likes and dislikes in foods and how they like their sandwiches cut etc. They feel more of a sense of belonging now that they have the same as what the other students have.
Going back to the bubble and my needs I knew that I am not the kind of person who can go very long without having emotional connections. I need to connect with others. So I listed items that would allow me to connect with the others, a computer, my family and a dog. Even if my family couldn't come I would have brought a photo of them. I think it is important for people within organizations to not only be aware of Maslow's hierarchy but to recognize that within each step of the pyramid there are levels of need. I know that not everyone shares my need to belong, or at least their need is not as high as mine. I have learned over the years to identify the level of need for belonging that my co-workers have. I seek out those who, like me, enjoy collaborating and want to create bonds. These are people who I know will be easy allies for me and I look forward to working with them. I also want to respect those who do not need such connections to be happy and try to ensure to give them space and not try to force them into projects or conversations with those of us who need to connect more. I know this can be overwhelming for those people and can create stress and conflict.
In my bubble I knew that food of course would be an issue and I didn't want to assume that all the food would be provided, certainly one can't pack a year’s supply of fresh fruit and veggies. So I decided that I would need garden supplies. For me this would fill a basic physiological need however it would also fill my esteem and maybe even my self actualization needs if it went really well! I am not an excellent gardener but I have a desire to learn more and to try and be better. Being alone in a bubble I knew that I would need a project that would keep my body and mind busy. It was my hope that by taking on the task of creating a mini garden based ecosystem in my bubble it would help me fulfill my higher needs on the pyramid.
I have always appreciated working under the leadership of those wise enough to set aside the rules or practices that sometimes prevent us from making allowances to meet one another's needs. This year our school struggled greatly with student behaviour. Students were even being dangerous and hurtful at recess. The leadership felt the best way to deal with the problem was to have all staff on supervision at all times. However this left staff's basic needs not being met. Many staff did not have time to eat or use the bathroom let alone rest. Within a few days the morale of the school dropped drastically and staff absenteeism went up over the next several weeks. The staff recognized that their basic needs were not being met which was putting them at risk for illness but also that they would not be able to do their job effectively if they could not address their basic needs throughout the day. After much appeal the supervision was reduced.
I think we can all easily agree that a person’s basic needs must be met in order for them to be able to perform in an organization. I think most of us would do our best to help anyone in our organization who was struggling to meet their basic needs. However, how often do we think about meeting our colleagues other needs? Do leaders watch for which of their organization's members feel like they belong? We all know about office 'cliques' but do we really know what they effects of being on the outside of the office 'clique' are?
I think that strong organizations have leaders and programs in place that work to address all levels of Maslow's hierarchy. Forbes.com reported the top ten outstanding things employers do for their employees: they offer flexible hours and/or the ability to work from home some of the time, they are easy-going about breaks, they install feedback systems up, down and across the organization, they get rid of all unnecessary personnel policies, they make their recruiting process fun and friendly, instead of formal, "grade-based" performance reviews they use one-on-one planning and goal-setting meetings to sync up with each team member, they employ a reasonable, human dress code that isn't detailed down to the level of the individual stitches, they respect their team members' obligations outside of work, they give their teammates as much latitude as they possibly can, they make every "win" a shared win, in every respect -- their employees share in the glory and in the riches, too (L. Ryan, July 2016, Forbes.com). Many of these items work to address the basic, psychological and self-fulfillment needs of their employees. They address basic needs of comfort, while protecting everyone’s sense of belonging and providing opportunities for employees to reach their full potential.
This was an interesting exercise. I immediately began to analyze the situation and ask a thousand questions. What counted as an 'item'? Would there be danger in the bubble? Would there be light? I became increasingly worried about choosing the 'wrong' items. I guess I could say that based on Maslow's hierarchy my basic needs must are being met and thus it is allowing me to be concerned with more Psychological - esteem needs. I certainly have a 'need' to succeed and feel accomplished with this assignment.
Reference:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/07/06/ten-things-outstanding-employers-do-for-their-employees/#3d9246e65e4d
Political Mapping:
Political Mapping Activity: In Alberta: “At what age should students start formalized schooling (kindergarten or grade 1)?”
Frame the central issue – the key choice that people disagree about
The age of entry for students entering kindergarten and grade 1 (Cut-off date).
Identity the key players (those who are most likely to influence the outcome)
-Government: Education Ministry, Infrastructure, and leadership (policy makers) of the various political parties
-School boards: Board of Trustees, Superintendent, Infrastructure
-Public: Voting public, parents of school age children
Where does each player fall in terms of the key issue?
Government:
-Education Ministry (same as NDP Leadership/policy makers) is researching and considering moving the age from age 5 by March 1, to age 5 by December 1 for Kindergarten. (age 6 by March 1, to age 6 by December 1 for grade 1).
-Infrastructure: If the age was to be changed they question if there would be enough space for students within the current schools.
-Opposition Leadership: Supports full-day and subsidized child care (no specific age mentioned)
School Boards and trustees:
-Many recognize that a higher age may be of benefit to students
-Many recognize that research is split on the issue
-They state difficulties to changing the age include: losing students if they change their age of entry to the surrounding school divisions, risk of alienating parents (the voting public), risk of not having enough space or too much space (especially during the transition year), implications on funding, adding difficult strain on the community if the age increased (especially if the community lacks high quality child care placements), concern for students who are at risk and the need to be able to provide educational experiences and exposure for those students sooner rather than later.
-Waiting for the government to come out with a decision or recommendation. This would eliminate competition between boards with varying age of entry dates.
Public (Voting public and parents)
-Some support an increase in age, many chose to keep their child at home until after the cut off, especially if their child is particularly close to the end of the cut off
-Some do not support an increase in age and feel their child is ready
-much of the voting public does not have an opinion on the subject unless they have a young school age child, unless the decision costs money they feel no need to support or oppose it, unless they have some personal connection to the debate (ie. had a child affected by this issue previously)
- Of the voting public with children of school age have concerns in regards to child care, can they afford child care if their child is not at school? When can they return to work? Is there quality child care available.
Other issues to consider:
-campaigning (advertise) to the voting public for change or maintenance of the status quo by official opposition parties (i.e. Liberals)
-Presentation of contradictory research and evidence during debates (possibly even funding of or for research to provide data for or against on the debate)
Frame the central issue – the key choice that people disagree about
The age of entry for students entering kindergarten and grade 1 (Cut-off date).
- Cut off date: must be age 5 by December of the school year (4 turning 5 during their kindergarten year)
- Cut off date: must be age 6 by December of the school year (5 turning 6 during their grade 1 year)
- Cut off date: must be age 5 by September of the school year (5 turning 6 during their kindergarten year)
- Cut off date: must be age 6 by September of the school year (6 turning 7 during their grade 1 year
Identity the key players (those who are most likely to influence the outcome)
-Government: Education Ministry, Infrastructure, and leadership (policy makers) of the various political parties
-School boards: Board of Trustees, Superintendent, Infrastructure
-Public: Voting public, parents of school age children
Where does each player fall in terms of the key issue?
Government:
-Education Ministry (same as NDP Leadership/policy makers) is researching and considering moving the age from age 5 by March 1, to age 5 by December 1 for Kindergarten. (age 6 by March 1, to age 6 by December 1 for grade 1).
-Infrastructure: If the age was to be changed they question if there would be enough space for students within the current schools.
-Opposition Leadership: Supports full-day and subsidized child care (no specific age mentioned)
School Boards and trustees:
-Many recognize that a higher age may be of benefit to students
-Many recognize that research is split on the issue
-They state difficulties to changing the age include: losing students if they change their age of entry to the surrounding school divisions, risk of alienating parents (the voting public), risk of not having enough space or too much space (especially during the transition year), implications on funding, adding difficult strain on the community if the age increased (especially if the community lacks high quality child care placements), concern for students who are at risk and the need to be able to provide educational experiences and exposure for those students sooner rather than later.
-Waiting for the government to come out with a decision or recommendation. This would eliminate competition between boards with varying age of entry dates.
Public (Voting public and parents)
-Some support an increase in age, many chose to keep their child at home until after the cut off, especially if their child is particularly close to the end of the cut off
-Some do not support an increase in age and feel their child is ready
-much of the voting public does not have an opinion on the subject unless they have a young school age child, unless the decision costs money they feel no need to support or oppose it, unless they have some personal connection to the debate (ie. had a child affected by this issue previously)
- Of the voting public with children of school age have concerns in regards to child care, can they afford child care if their child is not at school? When can they return to work? Is there quality child care available.
Other issues to consider:
- Determine the channels of informal communication: parents to teachers, teachers to administration, administration to school boards, parents to school boards, parents to school board trustees, NDP party to NDP party, Education Ministry to public
- Identify principal agents of political influence: voting public, school boards to the government, other government examples to the current government (ie: comparison to the success of our system to that of other successful systems, and corresponding data)
- Analyze possibilities for mobilizing internal and external players:
-campaigning (advertise) to the voting public for change or maintenance of the status quo by official opposition parties (i.e. Liberals)
- Anticipate counterstrategies that others are likely to employ:
-Presentation of contradictory research and evidence during debates (possibly even funding of or for research to provide data for or against on the debate)