|
|
In cycle one, my goal was to improve the quality of my collaboration with my work team. I observed, reflected on, and adjusted the way I participate within my team. My observations and reflections, along with my review of the literature on teams and collaboration led me to make changes in the way that I listened to my colleagues. In both one-to-one and group situations, I made a conscious effort to listen more actively. I worked to just listen without contemplating what I would say in response or what my next contribution would be. This change in the way I listened to my colleagues helped me become aware of an opportunity to assist one of my colleagues in achieving one of his professional goals, to teach an online professional development workshop. Our work together resulted in a very successful and well received presentation for the eLearning Guild Rapid eLearning Development Online Symposium. This presentation validated his professional standing both within the corporation we work for and within our professional community. This validation was something that he previously felt was missing. Prior to working on this project together, our professional relationship was tense. We did not understand each other’s work style or communication style and this often led to misunderstandings the impacted our productivity on team projects. Our work together on this project improved our professional relationship in a variety of ways. By the time the presentation was delivered, we had developed a deep mutual professional and personal respect for each other and a much better understanding of how to work together successfully. In reflecting on the experience of working so closely with a colleague with whom I was originally so frustrated, I asked myself how I could take the lessons learned and widen the radius. What could I change about my practice that might lead to improved collaboration with other members of the team in general? In an effort to evaluate my colleagues’ view of my communication and my contributions to the team, I asked them to fill out a short survey. While the overall results were very positive, a deeper analysis of their answers indicated that while my colleagues did trust me and felt that my communication and contributions to the team were very good, they seemed to not be quite as sure that I trusted and respected them. The discrepancy was subtle. They “Agreed Strongly” or “Agreed” that they trusted me and respected me while they only “Agreed” or were “Neutral” regarding my trust in and respect of them. Click HERE to see the results of that survey. Listening more actively and authentically was a good first step, but I obviously had more work to do. I began to think about the different types of interactions I commonly have with my colleagues in this work environment. One of the predominant interactions is the critique process. Our development model includes two content critique phases and two editorial critique phases. As I began to evaluate my own approach to the critique process, both as the reviewer and the reviewed, I realized that this was an area where I could improve my personal practice and potentially improve my collaborative skills and my relationship within the work team. To start this cycle, I decided to evaluate my approach to our critique process. I looked first at how I respond to the critiques of my work and then at how I critique my colleagues’ work. My question was: If I changed my approach to the critique process, would that increase my colleagues’ perception of how much I trusted and respected them and would this lead to better collaboration on our team? I looked objectively at both my actions and my attitude regarding the process of reviewing and incorporating comments from a reviewer. The review process consisted of me either making the change or changes indicated by the reviewer or explaining to the reviewer why those changes were either unnecessary or inappropriate. This was the typical approach to the review/critique process on our team. While this approach is appropriate to reviewer comments and changes regarding typos, grammar, style guide, and technical functionality issues, I began to suspect that a different approach might be appropriate for content and flow comments and changes. I decided to “re-invent” my approach to the critique process. I started by changing the way I approach my colleagues’ reviews of my work. I made a concerted effort to move from looking at a reviewer’s comments as “right” or “wrong,” something to either be accepted or rejected, to viewing the comments as an opportunity for further dialogue either with the reviewer, with myself, or both. I tried to move past the impulse to “defend” my design and development decisions and attempted to look at each critique as a fresh opportunity to re-evaluate and improve my own work. I came to see that the reviewer’s comments did not mean that that my design was wrong and the reviewer’s change was right. Rather, I began to look at the reviewer’s comments as an indication that something might not be clearly explained or might be missing from the content. With each reviewer’s comment (other than obvious typos of course), I asked myself, “What am I trying to convey that is not clear to the reviewer?” Rather than defend why I was right, or accept that I was wrong, I approached the reviewer’s comments as a method by which I could evaluate the clarity of the content in my instructional design and development. With each critique I tried to look at the reviewer's comments not as a way that I should (or shouldn't) change my work but rather as a way of understanding what underlying presumptions existed in my work and what knowledge I had taken for-granted The changes I made to the way I looked at the reviews of my work led me to reassess how I review the work of my colleagues. Looking at critique comments as a way of inspiring dialogue about the content design and a way of re-evaluating and improving that design inspired me to make some changes to the way I phrased my own critiques of my colleagues’ work. While I still made “editorial” comments where appropriate (typos, grammar and usage, and style guide issues), I also started including more comments regarding instructional design and flow. Prior to this cycle, I would generally use a method similar to track-changes to “overwrite” areas where I thought modifications were necessary. As part of Cycle two, rather than simply make or suggest revisions, I would ask questions about the content and include rationale with my suggested changes. Occasionally, I would not suggest specific changes at all but would only ask clarifying questions regarding the design and/or content. Near the end of the cycle I had the opportunity to review a lengthy manual designed by a colleague who, according to our current “job descriptions,” would not ordinarily design and develop any instructional material on his own. This colleague is a Learning Consultant and generally a Learning Consultant (LC) will work with a Learning Developer (LD) and the LD will do the design and development of the materials. However, the current business needs in our department require that our LCs do some design and development work too. The manual that my colleague developed required some significant modifications for both editorial and instructional design reasons. It was suggested by another LD that I just make the modifications, but I made a conscious decision to include explanations and rationale with all my modifications and changes. I initiated a dialogue with my LC colleague whereby I could share with him the knowledge of how to design and develop such a manual, rather than simply correcting it for him. This took more time initially, but my hope is that by sharing this knowledge this colleague will be better prepared to design and develop more training materials in the future. I also shared this rationale with my LD colleague in an effort to set an example of how we might all work together, LCs and LDs, to design and develop training materials. As with cycle one, the majority of my evidence comes from my own work. The majority of this work is in the form of the courseware I designed during this time and the reviews I performed on my colleagues’ work. For example, early in the cycle as part of the narrative (or script) for an application demonstration (to be recorded) I wrote: "For this demonstration, I want to search for self-paced training. I'll click the Method Type field and select Self-paced." In her review, a colleague wrote the comment: "Just wondering if this is really a valid example. Technically, everything in iMentor is self-paced from the point of view that it doesn't require a specific date/time. So, why would someone want to search for only a specific Method Type? I think I would just demonstration using the Content Type search. But... up to you."
In the past, when this colleague has made comments that I felt were in error or based on erroneous information, I've always telephoned or emailed her and explained the situation and my reasoning. Sometimes she sees and understands my reasoning and sometimes she explains her point in a way that causes me to accept her changes. Based on my knowledge of the system, I knew that my colleague’s comments regarding what is and isn’t defined as “self-paced” were not “technically” correct. My inclination, based on the way I previously worked with the critique process, was to telephone my colleague (she works in a remote office) and explain to her that "self-paced" as compared to "webcast" and "recorded web conference" (and a few other modalities) had already been explained and that it was appropriate for someone to search for the method type of "self-paced." Our conversations about these critiques are always very amiable (we genuinely like each other and do work well together), but I now understand that they really are about each of us "defending" our point of view. As part of cycle two, I took a different approach. Rather than either incorporate her suggestion or defend my own narrative, I looked at her comments as a way of evaluating what I had not made clear enough in my narrative. I realized that there was a clarification I could make that would retain the correct information but also incorporate the interpretation that she represented with her comment. I changed the narrative text to read: "For this demonstration, I don't want to look at any Webcasts or Recorded Web Conferences, so I'll select Self-paced in the Method Type field."
This change reflected the fact that I recognized that we both had valid points of view and that our two points of view were not mutually exclusive. As a part of our established review process, a reviewer will sometimes replace parts of the narrative with their own wording. They do this in such a way so that the original designer/developer can “accept” or “reject” the change (a process similar to track-changes). Prior to this cycle, this is exactly what I would do when my work was reviewed. I would accept or reject the change with little or no discussion other than to defend my choice (and I generally only had to defend myself if I rejected the change). As I started looking at the reviewer’s comments as a way of understanding what underlying presumptions existed in my work, I began to make choices other than “accept” or “reject.” In an effort to include my colleagues in my thought process without imposing too much on their tight schedules, I began writing very brief instant messages (IMs with AOL Instant Messager, aka AIM). These messages included my revisions and a quick question to them regarding whether they found it clearer, more informative, etc. In this way I have included them in my process but kept it quick, easy, and informal. We are all very busy and under a lot of pressure to work quickly, so I try to limit both the frequency and the length of my inquiries, so as not to interrupt any one person for too long or too often. I’ve found that having to put things in IM bite size pieces is also refining my own thinking process - a nice and unexpected benefit. Recently, I’ve noticed that several colleagues are now asking me similar questions, often verbally rather than with AIM or email. I consider this positive reinforcement for my new approach. I also consider it circumstantial evidence that they are coming to believe that I trust and respect them as they do me. As a way of evaluating whether or not I am continuing to improve on my collaboration with my team members and to find out what areas require additional work, I requested that my colleagues complete a peer-review for me. I based the design of my peer review on a common model. Click HERE to view the form. I requested that a total of 16 colleagues fill these out. This group of colleagues included four learning developers, four learning consultants, two instructional technologists, one subject matter expert who I work closely with on a regular basis, two support personnel, two managers, and one director. I explained the purpose of the peer review, assured them that their participation was completely voluntary and that I would not share their names with anyone without their permission. If they chose to fill out the review, I requested that they return them to me by Friday June 3, 2005. I requested that if they chose not to fill out the form for any reason, that they let me know by Friday May 27, 2005. I assured them that they did not have to explain why they chose not too. None of my colleagues indicated that they could/would not complete the review, but by Friday June 3 I had received six reviews. I received a seventh one on Monday June 10 from a colleague who had been out of town the previous week. I inquired with one colleague who had not returned a review, and she indicated that she did not intend to fill out the review since it was voluntary and she did not care to participate. I believe that the two managers and the director felt that the review was sent to them for “informational purposes" only, as they are not technically my “peers.” It is my understanding that a similar point of view resulted in the two support staff members not completing the review. Perhaps in the future I should consider calling these something other than "peer" reviews. I received reviews from three learning consultants, two instructional technologists, one learning developer, and one subject matter expert. The responses I did receive were overall extremely positive. Click HERE to see all the responses (names have been removed but I’ve left the job titles associated with each review for reference purposes). The following quotes illustrate how some of my colleagues view my collaboration skills:
It is, of course, possible that only the colleagues who fell that I collaborate well commented specifically on collaboration. It is also possible that only the colleagues who had something positive to say completed the reviews. I must consider the possibility that my other colleagues did not want to share what they consider to be negative opinions, and so chose not to participate at all. Still, these quotes reinforce for me that I am making positive changes in my practice.
The following quotes illustrate some of the areas that I can attempt to improve on in the future:
One of the things I had to learn (thought I had learned) many years ago was how to "accept criticism." It is interesting that we refer to it as " accepting criticism." One part of this process was learning to not become automatically defensive when someone else offered a critique. This lesson was reinforced in all of my art and drama classes, where a regular part of the process is the "critique." For most of my adult life, I've prided myself on being good at suppressing the automatic defense instinct when criticisms are offered. I thought that I was pretty good at taking comments, criticisms, and concerns of others into consideration and allowing this consideration to inform my future actions. Early in this cycle, I realized that I had been approaching the reviews from my colleagues as a form of criticism and that I considered this form of criticism as at least partially negative. I viewed it as a colleague pointing out what I personally am doing or have done "wrong" or me pointing out what a colleague is doing or has done “wrong.” In most cases I would either incorporate the changes or modifications as indicated or reject them and then explain why to the reviewer. Rarely did I attempt to open a real dialogue about the suggested changes or modifications. Perhaps this is why my colleagues were not sure that I respected and trusted them as much as they respect and trust me. I think I always knew that that there was a middle way somewhere between “accepting” a change and "rejecting" one. Cycle two helped me begin to discover that middle way. As I've worked through this cycle, I've found that I've come to look forward to the review process as an integral part of making my work better rather than as a necessary but tedious step. Prior to this cycle, I was not consciously aware that I was viewing the process as tedious. I've also found that I truly appreciate those colleagues who make insightful comments regarding the flow, structure, and content of my work. While I recognize the value in, and necessity of, an editorial review for typos, grammar, usage, and style-guide compliance, I actually find that I am disappointed now if those are the only types of comments a reviewer includes. This in turn has caused me to rethink and reflect on the way I review my colleagues work. I now make an extra effort to look at the work with an educator’s eye and not just an editor’s eye. The comments from my peers have reinforced for me that I am making positive changes in my own practice and that those changes are having a positive impact on how I collaborate with the team. The fact that only half of the colleagues invited actually completed and returned the reviews tells me that I still have work to do. This fact has also caused me to reflect on my own participation in such evaluation processes. I now take the peer review and survey process more seriously. When I am asked to participate in such a review process, I now make an effort to do so in a much timelier manner. In the past, while I didn’t generally “blow off” such opportunities I also didn’t always complete them immediately or even as soon as possible. I now recognize how frustrating it can be to ask for feedback and not receive it or not receive it within an expected time frame. In addition to everything else, this process is helping me become a more conscientious participant and that is part of collaboration too. Finally, I've begun to look for more opportunities to share knowledge beyond just sharing journal articles, research, and other interesting readings. I realize that I'd been making the assumption that if my colleagues wanted to know more about one of the subjects I shared, they would either read the article themselves or ask me specific questions. I am beginning to understand that sharing knowledge is not just telling people where the knowledge is located, it is also about initiating dialogue and then facilitating the continuation of that dialogue. I am now reflecting on a variety of ways that I can initiate and facilitate such dialogue. Cycle one was very personally focused in that I focused on my own listening skills and allowed that focus to lead me to collaborate closely with one specific colleague. Cycle two was also personally focused but I tried to broaden that focus somewhat by changing my approach to the review process used by our entire team. In cycle three, I hope to find a way to broaden my focus even more. Our current company culture speaks a lot about encouraging collaboration and teamwork but continues to primarily recognize individual achievement and reinforce competition before collaboration. I plan to explore ways to recognize and celebrate collaboration. Specifically, I am interested in recognizing and celebrating cross-departmental collaboration. |
| ©2005 Susan K. Tiss || Back to SKTiss Action Research Home |