This is the perfect time in our process to have a bit of a gut-check and address what is either a divergence in the team as to what the scope of our discussions are, or merely a question of different ways of framing the same photo.
Here was my train of thought: North Star is an organizational change process that asks EVERYONE in the department to start thinking about two things:
1. How we can be more integrated as a Department
2. How we can transform the way we work as a Department in order to be more collaborative, more evidence-based, an employer of choice, etc.
The way I understand it, the Policy Framework is the only product that addresses BOTH questions, with the horizontal task teams as the best EXAMPLE of how we can operationalize the policy framework from an institutional / organizational perspective.
All of the other products that have emerged over the last 18 months (wiki, CT business case, KM/CT plan, HR Renewal, SD course) address, in a specific/narrow way, parts of the 2nd question. In that way, they each contribute to (a) the North Star goals and (b) the Policy Framework goals.
I guess I'm starting to think that North Star is the process of reflection (identifying where to go when planning a road trip), the PF is the map (that outlines how you get to where you want to go on the road trip) and the other products are the tools that get us there (the car/bike/bus, the fuel, the food for the road, etc.).
The Dialogue Sessions should thus be about introducing the PF, because by doing so they introduce the goals of N*. Now, we can come up with better ways to introduce it than by saying "here's the PF dialogue session" maybe.
Anna's comments on the last post in the pedantic thread echoed what Jason was getting at with his idea of a 4th option --- starting with an essence based conversation about the kind of Department we want to be.
This could be a very different conversation, however - see, for example, the questions that I sent to the HR Employee Engagement Team (designing an activity where we talk about our ideal NRCan, and then situating HR Renewal in that context).
I'm thinking about this from a facilitation perspective, which always comes down to this: at the end of the session, what do you want participants walking away with? what questions/activities get you there? and how will you measure success?
For me, this is what I want employees to walk away with:
an understanding of:
1. How we can conceive of ourselves within one common story, thereby allowing us to represent our work using a common language.
2. How we can use the policy framework to enhance the way we work, improve our collaboration, be champions of SD, etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Picking up on Anna's comment in the Pedantic Policy Post thread --
are policy frameworks only for policy analysts?
I would say no. It will be interesting to see what happens when we take the PF out though...
Ooooh. We're so close, it's eating away at my insides.
So I agree with the first question. But the second question is where you and Anna start seeing differently right? But can we perhaps bring the two approaches together?
I'm suggesting to frame the question this way:
How can we frame our work to enhance the way we work, improve our collaboration, be champions of SD etc.?
(The answer is by using the framework, right? But let's see if the discussion can get at the nitty gritty. How can we frame the way we work? Need a common vision. How can we frame our work? Need to apply principles to our work. How can we frame our work? By ensuring we align to our mission which helps us meet our goals - aka PAA outcomes - How can we frame our work? Need to collaborate, to make linkages, to use new tools)
It's the same thing really, but we're using the policy framework as a verb. Yes, the document is a tool. It is a noun. But if we're going to really use it, it becomes a verb. (oh no, here comes the grammar discussion - because it can also be an adverb that describes HOW we enhance the way we work.)
But in an attempt to stay focused, we're looking at it in an active way. We need to frame our work strategically and this document helps us do it.
Now I'm excited!!!
I'm seeing two obstacles with these two questions. With regard to the first one: How can we be more integrated? What I want to know is how do we address the issue of "why should the average NRCan employee care about integration? What does that even actually mean? Is it about how we work together? If I'm a program officer, working on my program, with a very specific mandate, why would I care about being more integrated with the rest of the department? Where's the motivation? I think my point (emphasis on the "I think") is that the question I'd like to be asking is not "how do we be more integrated" but, "why do we need to be more integrated?" If we want to get employees engaged and on board, we need to show them why. I'm thinking of particular instances I've experienced in my own branch about trying to get people to collaborate. They weren't willing to collaborate. To share info. They are too busy. Too focused. Too immersed in what they are doing to see any links with others. It wasn't until I could talk to someone one on one, and illustrate to them the benefits of collaborating with me, that by sharing info with me, their job becomes easier, that the collaboration could enable them to offer more value to their own clients. It literally looked like a light bulb went off in their head that said, "Oh! I get it!" and now I can't get them to leave me alone! And I think it's that "I get it moment" that we're looking for. Show them why they should want to be integrated, then provide the tools to make that integration happen. I don't know, maybe the process happens simultaneously? In my experience, I couldn't talk about tools with them until they understood how integration benefitted them.
Ok...as for the second question. That's a pretty loaded question. How do we transform the way we work to be more collaborative? Ok, I get that. There are tools in place and more on the way. Use what works for you, etc. How to be more evidence-based? Not sure what is meant. Evidence-based is not something that speaks to me in my particular job. I'm sure it's important to someone. And employer of choice? Why should the employee care? I'd assume it's a management issue and not relevant to me. (Of course it is relevant to me, but I need to be shown how) Again, I think this is something where we need to sell the concept first. Why should being an employer of choice matter? Sell that idea, and then we can talk about tools to make it happen...or how to make it happen. Again, (and especially with this one) each employee is going to interpret the issue differently, and want a solution that is customized for them. Like My Yahoo! or My MSN, except now we're talking My NRCan. What will make one environment a workplace of choice is not going to work in another group. Our department is so diverse, one way can't work for everyone else. So...what was my point? Ah yes...I think we need to focus on selling why this stuff is important, why should people care, and then talk about tools and where we go from here.
Lastly, I'm just joining in on the conversation, and have very limited exposure to the nitty gritty of N* (even though I totally buy into it) so it's highly likely that I'm way out in left field, in which case, just pretend I didn't say anything...
And all of that in 2 hours!
Post a Comment