October 2008 Archives

Change management as a concept is one of those smack-your-head-duh type of things. Especially in the office. Change happens, and I guess we can either ignore it and let change do to us what it will, or we can try to manage it and do what we can to make the transition as easy as possible.

I got a book (I get lots of books), The Truth About Thriving in Change, by William S. Kane. It's written in a quick read format, which I'm not yet sure about. I've read a few of the "truths", but I haven't decided whether the author goes deeply enough into each truth to satisfy my curiosity. So, truth 1 - "Life is 10% of what happens to you and 90% of how you react".  Another one of those obvious statements that people rarely recognize. We get to choose how we react to everything that happens to us. We can choose to fight the inevitable, but if change is going to happen, what's the use? We can panic, but panic never helps in any situation. When we panic, reason shuts down and any chance to drive change is gone.

There are a few other truths in this book that really caught my attention. "Don't surround yourself with yourself."  No kidding. Who wants to be surrounded by people who only tell us what we want to hear? What a waste of time. "People can't drink from a firehose." I lost count of the number of times I've almost drowned while trying to drink from a firehose. New information has to come in doses that can be swallowed and integrated, otherwise too much of it gets lost and has to be learned again (another waste of time).

I hope some day to get to manage change instead of get buried under it. I think too many times we attempt change from a very top down perspective, not understanding or not accepting that change has to be recognized and worked on at all levels of the organization. Sure, at some point those who don't accept changes that have happened will have to be given the choice to join in or get out, but that threat isn't the best way to get people to want to change, which leads to the last truth from this book that I really want to mention "Trust is a currency not easily earned, but easily spent."  Handling change the wrong way is a great way to kill trust. Threats kill trust. Brute force will kill trust. There are strong-arm tactics that should be left until all other options are exhausted because even if people seem to accept the change, they may never trust again.

Most of these things are just common sense, basic human things that so often we just don't seem to know. Wonder why that is.

I'm pretty sure we've all encountered people who aren't very nice at work. Most people are perfectly amicable, preferring to get along with their coworkers so the work environment can be enjoyable. After all, who wants to work at a place where it's miserable?  But I think there is always someone who doesn't seem to get that concept, someone who is unhappy, perhaps by nature, and just prefers to share the experience with everyone else.  I'm not sure I understand why someone would choose to be miserable and surly, but there are those who do.

A lot of people handle the negativity by ignoring it. They hope it goes away on its own, or that the source will eventually get bored and go away. Unfortunately, misery has a way of spreading. Good moods are mildly contagious. Foul moods are like influenza, almost impossible to avoid catching when you get close enough to the infected. Rather than ignore, I prefer to find creative ways to end the antagonism and agony. I'm not of the opinion that letting it fester, hoping that it just goes away is productive, and it also teaches the wrong lesson.

Work is a community of people who have to operate as a team toward a common goal. Everyone has a responsibility to contribute to the team in a way that makes the team stronger. Bad moods do not factor into this. Everyone gets into a funk once in awhile. It's just the way it goes. What everyone doesn't do is bring it to the workplace and spread it around. When I feel less than glowing at work, I tend to shut up. I don't want everyone else to catch my mood and I sure don't want to affect the ability of the team to get their work done.  That is part of my responsibility as a citizen of the work community, and it bugs me when people think their bad moods are everyone else's problem.

Creative solutions, like being sure to chatter incessantly to someone who is stalking about in a rotten mood trying to make everyone feel uncomfortable. I make sure those people know that I'm not intimidated by their lack of social skills at work, and that they aren't going to change my behavior.  I've also told people if they choose to be jerks at work, they can go do it in their own space because I don't need it in mine. I especially love it when someone comes to me nastily demanding my help. Um, excuse me? You need my help and you think mistreating me is the way to get it?  No. If you are in a bad mood, don't come to me for anything unless you can control yourself. I don't reward bad behavior and I think if you need something from someone, the least you can do is be nice about it.

I also hang up on anyone who calls me and yells at me or give me an attitude. I just say "When you can approach this nicely, I'll be willing to talk." I see no reason to ignore people who do these things. I see no reason to let anyone think this is appropriate behavior.

We've been having a blast at work this week. One of my coworkers bought some Nerf dart guns, with little squishy rubber tipped darts. Today she got squishy darts with suction cups on the end. Then our supervisor got velcro tipped squishy darts. It will be quiet in the office for a few hours, then a shot will be fired. A dart will whiz through the room, past someone's head, and the battle will be on. All four of us sharing an office will spend five or ten minutes shooting darts at each other, or at each others' possessions. It's a wonderful way to blow off some steam, to take a break from really mind bending work, or to just have a good laugh as the dart sticks to the monitor across the room.

We were having a lot of worry-free fun until one of our customers walked in while we were having a battle. He laughed, but it gave our supervisor pause. What impression did our merrymaking have on the customer? Did he suddenly start wondering whether we do any work at all? Would he complain about the time we were wasting?  (Those are questions that ran through my head.) Thankfully it didn't dampen the spirit of the game, but it got me thinking, as stuff at work often does, about fun at work.

Is it appropriate to have a roaring good time in the office?  What does it hurt to do this? The only answers I can come up with are "Yes" and "Nothing".  It is appropriate for people who work closely together on stressful problems to find an outlet for the frustrations of their work that isn't detrimental to their health. Should people hold it all in and go out after work to pickle their livers? I think it's much better for our health and for office morale to be able to spend some time joking around and playing. It hurts nothing. As long as work gets done and we continue to make progress in new initiatives, it really shouldn't matter that we're laughing our butts off because someone pegged me in the back of my head while I was trying to work. 

I hear a lot that it's all about perception. Well, my perception of people who stick their noses into everyone else's business and complain about coworkers having fun is this: if you can pay that much attention to my job, you might not be paying enough attention to your own. Erroneous perceptions should be corrected immediately. Yes, you walked in to a bunch of grown children playing in the office, but those same people just solved a major problem and wanted to celebrate a bit. Or they are dealing with something frustrating or difficult and need to take a little break to refocus their brains. Or maybe those people who whine about fun at work really need to be asked what they are doing so far away from their desks during the workday.

So earlier, I went on and on about unschooling and what it is and why we chose to follow that particular path. This time, I really want to talk more about learning as a process and as an endeavor.

A bit of history. I have been taking college classes  off and on since I was 18. That's 22 years for the math-challenged (and those who don't know I'm 40). 22 years. My husband tells me I should be a doctor by now. I got my bachelors in 1999 and I still take classes, but instead of working towards a masters, I take classes I want to take. I look through the course schedule and pick courses that look cool to me. I spend my own money to take classes that will lead to nothing tangible - no degree, no better job. Just because they look interesting and are subjects I want to know. I did become a grad student in Workforce Ed. I found the classes too easy, so I quit taking them. I just meander through PSU's classes, learning about this and that and enjoying the biggest benefit of working at the university. And I love it. I love learning just to learn. I've always loved learning just because.

I want that for my kids. I want them to enjoy learning for the sake of learning, for nothing other than that. Forget that research shows people who stay mentally active are at lower risk for dementia later in life. I want them to take part in one of the greatest things about having a brain - the ability to learn about things. Just because. Learning is not a means to an end. Education might be, but learning isn't. Learning is inevitable if you pay any attention to the world at all. And learning is one of the best things about this world. It's full of so much that I don't know about, or as my mother is fond of saying "They write whole books about things I don't know, big books". I want to read those big books. I want my kids to want to read those big books. Just because. I think it's normal to want to learn, to be curious, to observe the world and find out about it. I think the way we have institutionalized education makes learning less enjoyable and less likely to be spontaneous. From kindergarten through college, education has an aim that is counter to fostering a love of learning - it's a means to an end. It makes me sad. Get the diploma, get the degree, get the job, and you're all done. No, no, no. People should never be done. I don't want my kids to ever be done.

The process of learning is spoon fed to us in schools. We are told what we're going to learn, when we're going to start learning it, stop learning it, how much of it we are going to learn.  We are given the materials. Choice is removed, thinking is unnecessary beyond what one needs to get the desired grade. It's so sterile and impersonal. Learning should be sought by the learner, not dumped on h** head. I want my kids to seek learning opportunities, to seek knowledge. Learning should be an endeavor. It should be something that is valued. Just because.

There will be a part three to this, to discuss how my kids locate and choose appropriate learning materials and how I think this kind of seeking of answers really helps them feel invested in their educations. Plus what they might actually do after high school is over (my oldest son is a senior this year!).

I had an interesting conversation today about learning and unschooling. Unschooling is a term not many people hear in a positive way. The "un" part seems to throw people off - "un" seems to be without merit. But unschooling isn't what a lot of people think it is, and in some ways, I really think unschoolers are in front of a curve in what learning is about - how it happens, why it happens, where it happens.  Unschooling can also be called "child led learning". It's a belief that kids will learn what they need to learn when they need to learn it. It's a belief that children are naturally curious and that all of life is an opportunity to learn. Child led learning seems to be more palatable to people, though, than unschooling (and this isn't a new realization because of today's conversation). "Un" seems to give the impression that it's a somehow passive process, which is the opposite of what unschooling really is.

My children are unschoolers. They choose what they learn. They choose their subject matter, the materials they use, and how much time they spend learning. Except for the fact that we have to cover certain subjects to fulfill state requirements, they are free to choose whatever it is they want to learn within those subject areas, free to choose how much they learn about the things they pick to learn. They are participants in every aspect of their educations, in charge of it, really. They aren't sitting and waiting to be told what they need to learn. Unschooling isn't passive. It's active and engulfing and it means that my children are fully engaged in the process of learning.

How can I trust my kids to choose what to learn? I almost have to laugh when I get that question. How can I not trust them? How can I believe that some paper-pusher who hasn't had to sit in a classroom for 40 years knows more about what my kids need than they do? Does that sound right to you? That people who refuse to be judged by standardized tests think they should get to judge children's potential based on standardized tests, it's crazy. My children interact in the real world and they really do a great job judging the things that are important to their lives and to their learning.

Humans are inherently curious and I've never known anyone to not want to learn. Until they go to public school. Babies learn to sit up, crawl, walk, talk, all sorts of things without any formal instruction at all. Think of all the things kids learn before anyone starts laying down rules about what it is they are supposed to be doing, learning, thinking (not to mention telling them how, when, and in what order). It's amazing. My children knew how to do most of what they teach in first grade before they even started kindergarten, but as soon as they got to school, suddenly learning wasn't natural, wasn't easy, and wasn't fun. My oldest son stopped reading, except what the teachers told him he was supposed to read. My middle son decided to game the system (a pretty useful skill, actually) and learned how to get by with the least amount of learning possible. School wasn't working for them, and I'd argue that there are a lot of kids like mine, who go through each school year just waiting for the summer, who learn only what the teachers tell them to learn, and then promptly forgetting what they can.

My kids aren't passive learners. They are involved in every aspect of learning. They seek knowledge that is important to things they want to do. Fractions became very important when they decided to learn to cook. They helped build a few rooms in our house. They also do a lot of academic work that they wouldn't have the opportunity to do in high school. We use my college text books a lot, neuroscience, anatomy and physiology, geosciences, psychology. They also read now, for pleasure, which is the opposite of what they did when they were in school. Unschooling isn't a lack of learning. It's a lack of schooling, which is a very different thing altogether. They learn everywhere, all the time. My kids love learning for the sake of learning, and that is what I want for them, to love learning, to choose to become lifelong learners.


Tomorrow, part 2 of learning - what is the purpose of learning?

One thing I really believe is universal among those of us who work for other people is the desire to be valued by the organization, to be considered valuable.  I really don't know more than one or two people who don't want to do their best work, who don't care if their work isn't up to par. I think we all really want to do good work and to have that work be valued. Don't we all want to feel needed?

Managers need to ask themselves if they show their staff members how valued they are. There are a lot of negatives in the workplace that can be completely erased by showing employees that they are important to the organization, that their contributions are significant, that they are needed.

This is so easy to accomplish. "Thank you" is simple to say, and a sincere thanks, given often and sometimes paired with a little token of recognition (try saying it in front of a group of people) can do a lot to boost employee morale. So can a pat on the back, a "good job", or "Wow, that's a great idea!"  I know how I feel when I hear those words. In fact, I remember my last boss calling me into his office, out of the  blue, and telling me that I was doing a good job and that he was tickled pink that I was working for him (that is a direct quote - tickled pink - wow). He did something like this at least once every six months, and it made such a difference in how I viewed my workplace. It made me want to work harder, to earn such a bold statement of my worth to the unit. Those were very powerful words, a very powerful incentive to try to be better than I was. Being told that I was impressing him, that he was happy to have hired me, that I was working out better than he could have hoped for, intoxicating words, I can't even describe how that made me feel.

I always tried hard to make sure the people who did a great job knew they had done so. I made it a point to talk to as many of the staff I supervised as I could every single day, just to see how they were doing, to check if there were barriers to them getting their jobs done, and to say "thanks for making my job so easy". If I had a sincere reason to say that, I made sure to do so. Sometimes supervisors get so caught up in the negative things, the little details that don't really matter, that they forget the basics of human interaction. Please and thank you really are magic words.