No more comments or posts here

This journal is now complete - as the course for which it was started is over. I've left the journal up for review and reflection purposes but, unfortunately, I've had to turn off the ability to leave comments as there are some very unscrupulous (nasty, mean, horrible, no purpose in life) people who insist on spamming blogs with their own advertisements. Rather than deal with the constant maintenance of erasing such inconsiderate, inappropriate, and just plain disgusting comments - I have decided to turn off the commenting access for all outside users (even blogger.com users).

It's really too bad.

For those of you that are honestly interested (and who know me), you can read current journal entries at Live Journal. Of course - you'll have to become a member of Live Journal... Live Journal (so far) has much better security.

Today was a good day.

The culmination of cycle 3 - "Celebrating Teamwork with Frozen Treats"... Our Ice Cream social (to recognize and sincerely thank all the teams that worked with us to release 50 learning events (a series of synchronous online "web conferences," a variety of self-paced online courses, and one week-long classroom seminar) all in time for the GA release of our newest version update for our laboratory product. It took the efforts of the entire education department as well as technical and subject matter expert help from a variety of people in about six other departments. We've worked for over a year (closer to two years) on this project from envisioning to "publication." We could not have done it with out the help and support of a lot of other people. Due to the current "disconnect" that I've noticed (the company "policy" is to encourage teamwork and collaboration across departments... but typically individual efforts and competition are what are recognized and rewarded...) - I wanted to find a way to demonstrate how much we (as a team) value collaboration and I wanted to find a way to recognize and celebrate collaboration.

I had really hoped that people would come enjoy the ice cream (and other "treats" and hang out for a little while in the Fun Room... enjoy each others company, socialize, etc. I was partially successful in that. Our company is split up in two different buildings that are actually about 3 or 4 miles away from each other. At the other building (where our sister department Technical Publications is located) - that is exactly what occurred. Nearly everyone who was at work this afternoon made their way to the Fun Room, enjoyed the frozen treat of their choice, and hung out for a while and enjoyed the company and the relaxed atmosphere. At our building, The majority of people came for the treats, took what they wanted, a then went back to their desk because they had "too much work" and "didn't have time" to hang out. They were happy with the treats and many said thank you and that they had really been looking forward to it (we announced the event last week on Friday by putting little posters up all over the building). I even received a couple of personal thank-you emails from a few people who knew that I was the one who organized the event. All in all, I think people liked it and I'm very happy about that - but I'm also a bit disappointed that the majority of people in our building felt that they could not spend a little while on a Thursday afternoon away from their desks. It became very obvious, based on some conversations I had with the few people that did hang out, and other conversations w/ my teammates that there are a large number of people in our office who don't really know the people that work in other parts of the building. They know the people who sit in the cubicle next to them, or somewhere in the same quadrant on the same floor... but they don't know very many people beyond that geography. This is not true of everyone - there are some who know a lot more people... some of this is because of their specific job. For example the lovely lady in the shipping and receiving dept who brings us our mail... but how many people know the other guys that she works with down there... the only reason I know them is because I have many personal packages [like school books] delivered and I don't think it is fair to ask her to bring those to me on the 4th floor... so I've asked them to just call me when such things arrive and I go down and get them. It's been fun because I got to meet everyone in Shipping/Receiving, they are a really good group of people.

This makes some real sense - it is an example of the ideas of hubs and connectors in networks... But - I think if our company is to succeed in changing the culture to be one of collaboration over [internal] competition then we must all get to know each other across teams and departments. It is funny, but now that I think about it... there are several of us in education that do that... partially because we teach people in other department and partially because we need their assistance to design valid training (we need those SMEs).... but I think there may be more to it than that. There are several of us that just want to know people. We spend some time actually getting up and visiting other people - not just emailing them or calling them on the phone. We talk to them about business, but we also tend to be interested in what television shows they are watching or what their kids names are... that kind of thing. Maybe the education department could become (or already is) a hub/connector in our corporate network.

Ok - the other really good thing that happened today. For cycle 1 I worked with a colleague to help him achieve his goal of presenting at an online professional conference. That in turn inspired me to write a proposal to make my own presentation at a national conference. Late last month (May 23 to be exact) I submitted a proposal to the eLearning Guild to present a session on interactive demonstration and simulation design/development for online courses focused on application training (using tools like Captivate). I wasn't sure the proposal would be accepted... as I've never presented at a national conference that wasn't sponsored by a company that I worked for. Today, I was interviewed (via the telephone) by the gentleman who is managing the organization of the presentations for the conference. He was very interested in my proposal and at the conclusion of the interview he told me that they would indeed like me to present. The conference is in November - so I now have a little personal project to occupy my time after I graduate. :)

observations and mixed feelings

I find myself rather frustrated lately, on several fronts, all at work.

The peer reviews I requested have been returned to me by several of my colleagues. The responses are all very positive and, from what I can tell, very genuine. I've received some valuable suggestions from a couple of people too, for which I am most appreciative. The frustrating part is that three of my five immediate colleagues (team members at the "peer" level) have not responded and two of those three definitely don't intend to respond. Although I indicated that I very much value their feedback and any suggestions they have for me, they feel that they have "contributed enough by filling out the survey a for my last cycle." Neither was hostile in any way, they are just not interested in participating in the process and don't feel that it is part of their job - which is certainly true. I have not pressed the issue, but it does make me sad and I think it speaks to a lack of trust (although it is not clear who or what it is that they don't trust since the overall atmosphere at work these days is one of insecurity, fear, and suspicion).

For Cycle 2 - I did make significant progress in my revised approach to formal critique and feedback. For myself, I've succeeded in turning the editorial critique process into something I honestly value and look forward to rather than just a "required step." I think I've also come to not only view the process as a dialogue but also demonstrate to others in the department that approaching the process as a dialogue is valuable. One drawback to this new approach is that I can tend to be disappointed when I don't receive content centered feedback (when I only receive editorial-grammatical type comments). Now that I have all the peer reviews that I think I'm going to receive, I need to finish writing up Cycle 2. As much as I love to write, in this particular situation I do find that the action and reflection comes much easier than the formal writing. I'm not sure if this is because it is such a fundamentally personal project or if there is something else at work there - I'll have to think on that further.

Cycle 3 is nearly done too - so it looks like a may be writing up two cycles this weekend. The event to celebrate interdepartmental collaboration was approved, I was given a budget of $150, and I was given the freedom to plan the event with out too much oversight. The colleague who I worked so closely with in cycle 1 helped me to create the "publicity" for the event (fliers and a little something to had out to anyone who attends). He did a wonderful job with it too. Another colleague made the excellent suggestion that rather than thank individual people (all the people that impacted the project in any way), we thank entire departments (and everyone in them). After all my talk about encouraging and acknowledging collaboration - it is funny that it took someone else to see this approach (I was ready to list dozens of names). I think the intent of the suggestion was inspired by a desire to not hurt anyone by accidentally leaving them off the list of names. But I see another level - for each of these people to take the time to work with Education on this project, others in their department had to "take up the slack" (even if that just meant answering a couple more calls or waiting a bit for their colleague to return and collaborate with them on something). So - in fact - it really did take the effort of entire departments and not just some individuals in those departments.

Progress on two fronts

Progress point 1 -
Cycle two is nearly over - all that remains is to send out my peer review requests and then evaluate whatever data those return. Last week I saw what may be evidence that I'm having an impact.... and it cam from a most unexpected direction. A colleague who whose views and opinions are very dominant in our group (I've reflected on observations about this colleague before) performed a "final" editorial (LD) review on one of my projects. In the past, this colleague would generally make/"suggest" changes by crossing out what I'd written and inserting what he/she felt was more appropriate. This technique was used regardless of whether the comments concerned grammar/usage or content. Quite often, upon receiving such comments, the majority of us (myself included) would accept the version that this colleague supports. I should note that this person knows every rule of grammar (that I am aware of) and is a walking "manual of style." Because of this level of expertise, the entire team tends to defer to this person even when the commentary isn't about grammar/usage. As part of my effort to reinvent the way I engage in the review/critique process, I have initiated a dialogue with this colleagues regarding specific comments in the critiques I receive (especially comments regarding content). In each case - I believe the end result has been better than either my original work or the initial modifications suggested by my colleagues.

So - now I come to the most recent review performed on one of my projects by this one specific colleague. There were few comments (this was a very small and narrowly focused project) - only one was about content. The noteworthy thing is that in this case, rather than rewrite the content, this colleague asked me a clarifying question about what I had written... a question meant to make me look again at what I had written and compare it to what I was actually trying to convey without re-writing it for me (and thus making an assumption about what I was trying to convey). This particular colleague has never (in my experience or recollection) done that before (at least not with me). As part of my work in Cycle 2, when the timing is appropriate I've been discussing ways to approach the work we do with each other (on the education team) as an opportunity to learn from each other. As I critique the work of others, I've talked about my approach and explained how I hope we can teach and learn from each other and how sharing our methods and rationale helps make this possible. I've worked to share this approach with everyone and in different formats (both casual conversations and formal meetings and critiques). I really wasn't sure it was making any difference to anyone but me... this one little comment from this specific colleague has given me hope that I am making a difference.

Progress point 2 -
Cycle 3 begins! I was concerned that I would not find a cycle three - I found out a couple of weeks ago that moving cube walls is out of the question and I struggled with how to approach my third cycle, as I really wanted to do something that was a little more "extroverted" than my first two cycles. Last week an opportunity presented itself - to organize the first real celebration of a big interdepartmental collaborative effort. This will give me a chance to act on some of the things I've been saying for months now. For some time I've observed (and shared my observations) that the company may talk about supporting, facilitation, and nurturing collaborative work... but the culture still rewards individual efforts and competitive efforts. When appropriate - I've tried to bring the disconnect to the attention of certain managers and directors but this has been a slow process. Now - I have a chance to really walk the talk. Last week I received the support of our department Director and one of our managers, today I received the very enthusiastic support of our other manager. So - now I get to do the real work... come up with a plan for the event and a budget... then work out the date and get the info out there! This will have to be a fairly fast turn-around - as the first training starts the week of June 6 and I'd like the celebration to happen sometime during that two week period (while the training is happening). If I can do it the week of the 6th that would be best... that way I'll have time to write the cycle up before the last minute. :)

Ideal job

This assignment is far more difficult than I thought it would be.

The ideal job. I've thought about it, researched different types of positions, looked at some of the current open positions in the general field that I currently work in and even some in other somewhat related fields.

I'm not sure there is an ideal job for me. Why?

I don't think I've ever looked to the work I do to fulfill me - at least not completely. I see the work I do for wages as only one part of the work I do in this life and as only one small part of who I am. It fulfills certain needs - some practical (the ability to pay my bills), some more esoteric (satisfaction in the job I do, enjoyment of the tasks I undertake, social connections with the people I work with, the chance to learn new things, etc) - but it does not fulfill all my basic needs. I don't think I've ever looked to any one thing to do that, just as I have not really ever looked to any one person to do that (other than myself perhaps).

So - what kind of position would fulfill both my intellect and my creative spirit - yet still leave room in my life for all my other passions (art, music, dance, reading, writing, film, dogs, performing, etc). I don't want a position that fills all those needs if it means that I would not have the time outside of "work" to pursue them in other ways not related to work.

I think, perhaps - part of why I'm having such a difficult time with this assignment is that somewhere in my not quite conscious thoughts I hold the belief that if I figured out what that dream position was, was offered it, and accepted it - that it would become the sole focus of my life and I don't want a sole focus in my life (other than living that life). I think there is also the fear that no such job exists or that if it does exist I either would not get it or I would get it and then the company would close down or move and I would either loose it or have to make a choice between where I want to be and what I want to do.

One way or the other - there are obviously several competing fears that are standing between me and writing a description for my idea job.

So - how do I face those fears? How do I allow them to pass through me so that I come out on the other side of them?

I don't want to write some fantasy job that encompasses ALL that I am passionate about. I want my various and beautifully diverse passions to be allowed to exist on their own and not be combined under one title.

I want to write a description for a real job or a job that could really exist, a job that I could be passionate about doing (and doing well). Work that I could be engaged in, find enjoyment in, find intellectual stimulation, find opportunities to express my creativity, collaborate with other people (who are passionate about what they do) - but not be so completely caught up in and involved in that I find that I don't leave room for the other things in my life.

Perhaps that is really my greatest fear - that I would have to give up one of my other passions for this "ideal job." Interesting... that was my greatest fear about applying for this OMET program as well. I almost didn't apply because of it... not because I was afraid I wouldn't be accepted - I knew not being accepted was always a possibility but I've learned how to cope with disappointments like that. No the reason I struggled so with my decision to apply was that I was truly afraid of what I would have to give up in order to get the most out of this experience (and to find success in it).

So - what did I give up? I gave up spending 2 evenings a week at the dance studio and being part of a dance troupe - and now I find that I am a much happier person for it as that studio and that troupe were not very healthy places to be (emotionally). I gave up going to Bikram yoga 3 or 4 times a week (lately I don't even get there once a week). I gave up going to the cinema 2 or 3 times a week. I gave up several novels and other books every month (pleasure reading that is). I gave up going to out of town dance workshops and performances. I gave up some of my high level of involvement in the "local arts and performance scene."

Now - what didn't I give up...? I still dance professionally (performances at least twice a month), I still do yoga (just do it at my house now), I still go to some group fitness classes (just at the gym which is closer than the yoga studio and less expensive), I still paint, photograph, draw, write, and read (although some of it is "for school" but it is still very satisfying). I don't see as many films right now - but I know that will change once I graduate.

Ok - so - in some ways going back to school was like finding my idea job... and I've made it work - I've given up some things but also figured out which things I was willing to give up or put on hold and which I wasn't. AND - I've found a great deal of fulfillment in the work I've done for school - which has more (much more) than made up for anything that I gave up.

Perhaps most significant - of the things that I did give up I now have enough distance (literal and figuratively) to be able to see which ones I want to work back in and which ones I'm happier and healthier without... which relationships were pulling me down and holding me back. That's pretty friggin significant. Pretty friggin great and amazing too. (I wonder if that's how you spell friggin)

So - what would happen if I figured out what my idea job is and then found a way to do it? Given what has happened this past year - would I really give a bunch of my other passions up, never to return to them? No - very likely not. Would I find some new and different outlets for some of them? Very possibly. Would I find that some of them don't have as positive an impact on my life as I thought? Maybe. Would I discover some new passions? Very likely. Would my idea job today still be my ideal job in 3 or 5 years? Not bloody likely (as our CEO would say) - I don't think I'm built that way.

So.. really... what am I so afraid of? Nothing is permanent and attachment to anything at the expense of other opportunities is not really that healthy - it certainly isn't the way to enlightenment or to joy for that matter.

Part of evolving and growing is being able to let go of the old and the comfortable to make room for the new.

Up until OMET, I moved through my life adding more and more things (hobbies, relationships, passions) without ever letting go of much - or only letting go of things that I somehow felt were "complete." I just kept adding and adding and somehow found room for it all. This last year I've learned that sometimes there isn't room for it all... and sometimes things are past complete and I just haven't realized it and so have not let them go when I should have.

So - where do I go from here? I still don't have my idea job description written. I'm still not sure I know what it is. I think I need look at it as my ideal job for the next few years... rather than my idea job for the rest of my life (didn't realize I'd been thinking of it as something that permanent until just now). Writing a description for my ideal job for the next few years is a much less weighty task. I already feel a little better just thinking about it in those terms.

be the change you want to see

I tried something a little risky today... well not risky in a big sense but risky in terms of personal comfort and in terms of challenging someone else's role just a bit.

I'm working on a review of a colleague's work (an 87 page manual for the new version of Live Meeting - Microsoft provides absolutely no manuals or training to us of any kind... or perhaps the corporation doesn't purchase that service - so our department must create the manual and training from scratch).

This colleague is one of the members of the [former] employee education department. Prior to our departments becoming one department (Big Ed) - the employee education department created most of their own training materials (including manuals) without a real review process. This is understandable, as they were a department of 3 (1 manager, 1 trainer/designer/developer, and 1 training coordinator [administrative staff]). Now that we are all part of one department (and now that there are a few more people working on internal education projects) we are making an effort to bring the internal learning materials into the four phase process that we use in client education (envision, design, develop, stabilize). An important part of that process is the editorial and content reviews. Generally, content reviews are performed by Subject Matter Experts and editorial reviews are performed by Learning Developers/Designers. Because we are under a great deal of daily pressure to keep our production level high, the internal training materials as yet don't generally go through a full set of two editorial reviews (one at the design phase and one at the development phase)... we do try to conduct one editorial review though.

Now - because employee education did not have an established style guide and client education did, it was decided that we would start with client education's style guide and modify it as needed and where appropriate for employee education projects. Our colleagues from employee education are not yet familiar with our style guide, so some of what they write and develop doesn't meet the stated requirements. The other important factor is that our new Big Ed department has 5 Learning Developers and 4 Learning consultants... the division of job duties in the past has been that the Learning Consultants work with the SMEs, develop the vision scopes, act as liaison between the SMEs and the LDs, and often also conduct instructor led training. But - this was only true for client education... now that the department is responsible for both client ed and employee ed, there are learning consultants who are also designing and developing training materials (such as the manual I'm currently editing).

There are those in the department who want to keep the task of designing and developing all instructional materials as one for LDs only. Those who want that don't believe that the LCs should be developing the actual content and training materials.

Given the current demands on the department and the current corporate culture, this is an unrealistic expectation. Given the talent and value of our LCs this is, in my opinion, also and unnecessary expectation... more of a control issue than a quality issue.

So - that's the background... now here is what happened today.

I'm working on this 87 page document and it is requiring quite a bit of editorial work - not only for the style guide issues but also for basic writing technique and instructional design.

When we perform editorial reviews for other LDs, we never make changes w/o discussion (w/o giving the original developer the opportunity to review and accept, deny, or modify our changes). If it isn't a typo/grammar/usage correction, we generally call our changes "suggestions" and leave the final decision up to the original designer/developer.

As I work on this 87 page document, I'm approaching it in that way. So rather than just make a change w/o explanation, I'm making suggested changes and explaining the rationale for the changes. It is taking much longer than if I just "re-did" the document.

One of the other LDs (one who is of the opinion that LCs should not be designing/developing content) commented that it would be much quicker and easier if I were to just rewrite the manual in the "correct" way. This colleague further commented that LCs shouldn't be creating learning events and training materials anyway (implying that I should not be spending the time to give the project a full editorial review but should just "fix it"). Ordinarily with this particular colleague, we all just sort of nod and then quietly do what we were doing. This colleague has very strong opinions, exerts them on the whole department, and many of us often choose to just not rock the boat. I'll admit, I've done that plenty of times... it is often much easier to do that. I sort of pick my battles. Well... I decided that this was one of those battles.

So - I stated in as non-confrontational way as possible that given the current demands on the department and the need for internal (non-revenue) as well as external (revenue... client) instruction, LCs would, for the foreseeable future, be creating content and learning events. We cannot realistically put all the internal and external content creation in the hands of 5 LDs and expect to have the training we need when we need it. So - rather than frustrate ourselves and waste our time and energy fighting something that won't change, we need to figure out a way to work within the situation and still produce valid and valuable internal training. My (LD) colleague sort of agreed... grumbled about the "management" but agreed. So - I saw an opening there and I explained that if I just "fixed" the manual then the next time our LC colleague created training materials the same mistakes would be made again and I (or another LD) would have to "fix" it again. I felt it was worth my time now to at least offer this colleague (LC) the opportunity to learn how to create better training materials. I know this colleague well enough to believe that they want to write better training materials and I know this colleague is capable of it. I told my LD colleague that it was like the saying about giving a man a fish versus teaching him how to fish. I don't know if I got through any further than simply making it clear that I had a thought out reason for doing what I was doing. Time will tell. It is difficult to change a culture from one of ownership and competition to one of shared vision and shared paths to reaching that vision. I thought standing up for that vision would energize me... but in fact I'm quite exhausted tonight... it feels like such a struggle sometimes and I've been wondering more and more lately if I want to continue this specific struggle. I guess time will tell me that too.

Elevator pitch

This is more difficult than I thought it would be... perhaps I'm making too big a deal of it... but part of me thinks of an elevator pitch as an audition. It is more than just describing yourself and or what you are doing... it is about selling yourself and inspiring the person you are talking to into wanting to be a part of what you are doing.

So - what is it that I am doing that I hope will inspire others? (and what am I doing that I hope will inspire me).

I started out looking at my work with the team, my communication style, my project management style, and how I might improve all those things. I thought the goal was improving project management. I thought I already communicated fairly well, collaborated well, etc. I learned fairly quickly that I still have a lot to learn.

Through my initial readings, I began to understand that a functional team requires more than just people working on projects together. Trust is required... more than required... it is essential. And there must be more than one kind of trust... professional trust (that your colleagues can and will do the job... will pull their own weight) is important but so is affective (emotional) trust. The more I thought about the significance of trust, the more I started to look at my work environment differently. I came to realize that in many ways I had not been letting my colleagues "in" in a way that would build affective trust. In fact - I began to notice a distinct lack of that kind of trust in our general environment. We all trust that the other team members will do the job... in fact we trust that each of us will do a very good job (even the best job we can)... but the overall culture of the company and therefore of the department and even of the team is not one of trust. Each person on the team is convinced that there are several people (especially managers and 'outsiders') who have no clue what we actually do much less how we do it or what we need to do it well. None of us feel very secure in our position (the company could decide at any time that they want to outsource our work, or that they think that we can do the same work with fewer people). We are not confident that our manger will fight for any of us (in fact, some of us are fairly sure that he wont). An adversarial attitude has developed among some team members.

It is ironic - because our core team has a lot of fun together and to those not on the team it looks like we adore each other and love our jobs. In fact, in many ways that is true. Each of us enjoys doing the "work" that we do. Each of us likes our other team members (with one or two notable exceptions... and they still work together). Yet, at the same time, there is this undercurrent of general dissatisfaction and resentment about a number of things that most feel are beyond our control.

So - that is the "problem"... and not the one I thought it was when I started this journey.

As I came to have a better understanding of the underlying problem, I began to look more closely at how I functioned within the group. Was I having any effect on the group? Was I supporting, encouraging, or even promoting the general dissatisfaction? If not promoting or encouraging it, was I enabling it? Was I working to dispel it? I realized that some of my actions were enabling it. I was buying into a cycle of frustration. So, I took a step back and worked on really listening to what my colleagues were saying (and not saying). I watched what they were doing (and not doing). After a great deal of listening and reflecting, I began to see at least one way I could help ease certain frustrations and also work on my own professional growth. (This was my work with the colleague who made the presentation for the online symposium)

As I worked on this project I also continued to listen, watch, and reflect on how I was interacting within the team. Was I following (another way of enabling the current frustration and ennui)? Was I working in a way that would light a path away from that? I started looking at how I was responding to criticism... not general criticism... but formal critique. I realized that I was "following" or "disregarding." I began to look at the critique process in a new way - as a way of focusing (shining a light) on what wasn't clear about what I had written/designed/developed/etc. I also began to look at it as a way to foster a dialogue with my colleagues. Rather than just accept or reject the comments made during a critique, I began to use them as an opportunity to have an exchange of ideas with my colleagues. This one small, but profound change in my own approach caused a huge change in my overall attitude and my own personal satisfaction at work. I started looking forward to the critique process. That, in turn, has caused me to begin looking for other ways to encourage exchanges of ideas. The nature of my participation in group meetings (team meetings, project meetings, etc) as well as my participation in one-on-one meetings (w/ my manager in particularly) has begun to change. Still in small steps - but I'm finding a role as a mediator (translator) - I'm learning to become more aware of miscommunication and disconnects as they are happening rather than after the fact. I'm starting to explore ways of helping both sides (or all sides) understand the point of view of the other. Once or twice lately, I think it has worked.

So - given all of this... what is my elevator speech?

Hi! My name is _______. I'm an instructional designer/developer and a graduate student in educational technology. It's a pleasure to meet you.

Have you ever wondered what's at the root of a really successful team? Well, I have, so I set out to find out. I decided that the best way to find out was to start with myself. I asked myself, how can I be a better team member? How can I improve my collaboration skills? How can I work to improve the relationships on and the work of my team?

I looked at current research on teams, teamwork, and collaborative environments. I found that through-line, the common thread is trust. For a team to function, grow, and be successful, there must be trust. Both Cognitive trust (a trust that your teammates can and will do their part) and Affective trust (the trust built and nurtured by emotional bonds).

For my first cycle of research I took a step back and actively listened to and watched my team. I reflected on whether my contributions enabled the current somewhat dysfunctional status quo or lit the way toward a more functional and satisfying type of collaboration. I looked for ways that I could support both the professional and affective needs of my team mates and also enrich my own growth and development. An opportunity to facilitate a team member in his own professional development and be cause I was paying such careful attention, I recognized the opportunity and embraced it. I worked with this team member to help him propose, write, and develop a presentation for an online eLearning symposium. Our work together on this one project effected our other work together and within the team as a whole in a very positive way. I believe that I was also instrumental in my colleague recognizing his own talent and value in a new area, professionally. Our work on this project reinforced our cognitive trust in each other and also increased our affective trust in each other.

For my second cycle, I am re-inventing my approach to the critique process. I've challenged my self to cease viewing critique and critical comments as something to either accept or reject and begin looking at it as an opportunity to begin a dialog with my colleagues.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to share with you a little bit about what I'm doing. Please feel free to ask any questions or offer any advice.

Cycle 2 work

Cycle 2 turned out to be completely different than I thought it would be. I would call it a cycle still in progress - but then I feel like cycle 1 didn't really end until my colleague actually delivered his online presentation (which he did with much success last week on Thursday... more on that in a different posting).

Cycle 2 was originally going to be about peer review and being a contributor - but my realization about how I had been dealing with critique caused me to review that.

For the last two weeks I have worked at incorporating my mid-April realizations about how I had been dealing with critique.

With each critique I've 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 exist in my work. What knowledge have I taken for-granted? What assumptions have I made? Initially I was concerned that my colleagues (reviewers) would find it an imposition if I kept coming back to them (regarding their comments) w/ "what do you think of this?" and "do you think this makes more sense or is clearer?" We are all under a great deal of daily pressure at the moment and there often seems to be an attitude that one should just get one's work done and not ask too many questions or spend too much time tweaking something to make it better because "getting it done" is more important than taking time to "make it better." :( So - in an effort to include my colleagues in my thought process without "imposing" on their tight schedules, I've takento writing very brief IMs which include my revisions and a quick question to them regarding whether they find it clearer, more informative, etc. In this way I can include them in my process but keep it sort of quick, easy, and rather informal. So far, that seems to be working. I try to limit both the frequency and the length, so as not to interrupt any one person too often. I'm finding that having to put things in IM bite size pieces is refining my own thinking process - a nice and unexpected benefit.

As I've worked through this, 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. I've also found that I truly appreciate my colleagues who make insightful comments regarding the flow, structure, and content of my work over the colleagues who simply catch typos and suggest different grammar or word usage. This in turn has caused me to rethink the way I review my colleagues work. I find that I am making more and more comments regarding instructional design and flow and fewer "editorial" comments. I don't overlook or ignore typos, incorrect grammar, etc (those things are important too) but I now don't shy away from making suggestions regarding structure, flow, presentation, instructional design, etc. I've also started to add some basis for my comments... for example, in a recent review where I noticed a colleague had put a great deal of informational text in a "text box/bubble" and then followed it with one piece of directional/instructional text ("type___and press Enter")... rather than just suggest that this colleague break up the informational text with either line breaks or even multiple bubbles controlled by the learner ("click here to continue...") - I included with my suggestion a short explanation regarding readability, flow, and learner centric design. I'm not sure yet how this new approach to my reviews will ultimately be received - only time will tell. There is a bit of an attitude here that it is more important to just create stuff than to actually spend time understanding learning theory and applying that understanding to what is designed. There is also an attitude that if the writing is "good" (meaning correct grammar, word usage, spelling, etc) then the instructional design is good. I'm not quite sure how to change that, as I'm only just beginning to understand how deeply pervasive the attitude is - but I think modeling a different approach is a good start.

In addition to modeling an Instructional Design (rather than technical writing) approach, I've also tried to model a true collaborative approach by discussing my proposed changes with the reviewer, rather than just making the changes and then sending the project onto the next stage. I have not yet noticed anyone else in my immediate circle doing this (that circle being those of us focused on client education development) but I have noticed that some of my colleagues who focus on internal (employee) education development are doing this. They are new to the review process in general, so perhaps it is easier for them to begin to take a different approach. In the past two to three weeks, my colleagues who work on employee education have begun to approach me about collaborating on their projects, reviewing their work, and assisting them in learning how to use some of the tools that I use to create learning events. I wonder if the personal effort I'm making to learn how to truly embrace critique (rather than just accept it) has somehow made me more approachable even to those who are not reviewing my work?

Looking at critique in a new way.

Something remarkable happened today. By "remarkable," I do mean "worthy of remarking on."

One of the things I had to learned (thought I had learned) many years ago (as a teenager/young adult) was how to "accept criticism." Interesting that we refer to it as "accepting criticism." One part of the process was learning to not become automatically defensive when someone else offers 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 many years now (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 all comments, criticisms, concerns, etc into consideration.

Flash forward to today...

I have a colleague who works out of a "remote" office. I am currently working closely with this colleague on several projects and have worked closely with this colleague in the past as well. This colleague has a bit of a reputation in the department for not being the easiest person to work with. My personal opinion has always been that this is partially due to the fact that 90% of our communication with this person is via email and telephone. There are some who can come across as relatively harsh and even rude in electronic communications and some who come across that way in telephone communications as well. This colleague tends toward that in both email and telephone conversations. I've always taken this into consideration and, I believe, that is part of why I generally work fairly well with this colleague. That said - I've still felt the sting of more than one seemingly "overly harsh" editorial comment regarding my design and/or development work. To date my reaction has always been to attempt to overlook the apparent rudeness (chalking it up to a tact of overt tact). I've considered this colleagues comments and attempted to adjust my own work when I felt the comments had merit. Alternately, when I felt the comments were incorrect, of the mark, or demonstrated a misunderstanding on this colleague's part - I've endeavored to explain why my original work was correct.

Today, I realized that I tend to approach such critique (both from this colleague and from others) in a very defensive manner. I had not recognized it as defensive because I try to take a very analytical (non-emotional) stance when I explain my reasoning... but... I now understand... what I am actually doing is defending my "rightness." Basically - I'm still viewing as either "I'm wrong and the critic is right" or "I'm right and the critic is wrong." This subtle because I learned the politics of defending myself intellectually many years ago. All those art and drama critiques served me well. In art and drama there is often no right answer... there are just the choices you've made regarding the motivation for your work, your character portrayal, etc. During a critique, your are not being told that you should have done something different... rather, you are asked to explain the why. You must dig deep into your conscious and sub-conscious and find where your inspiration and intent is coming from and then articulate it to your peers. Years of practice doing this in somewhat formal group settings is probably one of the reasons I'm good at self-reflection.

What is interesting is that I did not transfer this "no right or wrong" to my work outside of the "arts." So in my professional life - I look at critique in much the same way a student might look at a paper marked up in red by their teacher. Either it is wrong and I'd better change it (to get the better grade) or it is "right" and I must defend it to the teacher.

Today - I think I've given myself a glimpse of a different way.

In the narrative for an application demonstration (to be recorded) I had written "For this demonstration, I want to search for self-paced training. I'll click the Method Type field and select Self-paced."

My colleague (who was performing a peer review of my work) 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."

My initial reaction to this was two fold. First, I felt her use of "But... up to you" was a bit... well 'passive aggressive.' I told myself to ease up - that she probably was just trying to be considerate of my reasoning. Second, I knew she was wrong. The method "self-paced" is not based on date/time but rather based on the functionality of the lessons. We have recorded conferences and webcasts which are not defined as self-paced... but rather as a method type of their own in our training catalog. These method types had been clearly defined early in this very same training (prior to the place where the demonstration would be presented). My inclination was to call my colleague up 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 absolutely appropriate for someone to search for the method type of "self-paced." In the past, when she has made comments that I felt were in error or based on erroneous information, I've always called her and explained the situation and my reasoning... sometimes that's the end of it and sometimes she explains her point. These conversations are always very amiable (we genuinely like each other and do work well together)... but they really are about each of us "defending" our pov.

Today - I did something different. I looked at her comment, thought about it, and 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. Rather than call her and have a friendly conversation and/or debate regarding the validity of searching by method type... or possibly having a debate regarding how we should define "self-paced" training (which currently only includes our interactive training events not the pre-recorded ones that the learner just sites and watches and listens to).... 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 serves two purposes - 1. It demonstrates the Method Type filter (as I intended to do) and 2. It reinforces the earlier information about how method (or modalities) are defined in our system.

This is important because it means that I recognized that we both had (have) valid points of view and that our two POVs are not mutually exclusive.

I don't have to accept criticism... or rather... accepting it doesn't necessarily mean supplanting something I've done for the way someone else would do it ... or ... alternately defending the way I'm doing and explaining why I don't need to change it. I need to look at criticism more closely ... more deeply. Rather than become defensive - I need to ask myself... what isn't clear... what is it that I'm trying to convey that isn't getting across that is why this person has the criticism that they have? I thought I was already doing that ... buy explaining my reasoning... but... while explaining my reasoning to the critic might mean that the critic comes to understand my position... it doesn't mean that my position is clear to anyone else. The work I create (whether professional instructional design or art work) must be able to speak for itself because I won't always be there to explain it. I don't want any of my work (writing, instructional design, art, etc.) to be so obscure and opaque that I must always be there to explain it.

Communicating about the disconnect

This is not a full post... but I don't want to forget about this and so thought I would record it here. I met with my manager today (regular weekly progress meeting). We were discussing monthly reports, some new management tools the company has provided to him (and other managers) and the over all push to change the company culture in to a more collaborative, team-player, "we all mater" type culture. So - I took a chance and talked to him about some of the specific example I've seen of a disconnect between this desired culture and the actions that the company is taking. Rather than simply complain about "cost containment," "lack of resources," etc - I explained how confusing it is to read an announcement about the latest effort to celebrate our new culture but then 5 min. later receive an email explaining that we can no longer purchase office supplies w/o director approval. Turns out that very example came up at the last manager meeting and that it led to a discussion about the dispensing communication situation.

So - I went out on a further limb. Recently the company has been pushing (err... promoting) the idea of singling out individuals in different groups who are doing a particularly great job of exemplifying the new culture. Each department is being asked to pick three people from other departments that truly stand out as working to represent this new culture. While this is a nice idea and it is certainly gratifying to get individual recognition - I pointed out that if the culture is really about working together than what we should be promoting is examples of groups that have exemplified excellent collaboration. I suggest that in addition to rewarding individual contributions, we might want to find a way to celebrate examples of collaborative contributions. I even offered a few examples of recent projects that I'm aware of (not necessarily ones I've been personally involved in either) where it was the collaborative effort that made it happen and where that collaborative effort not only included the various individuals who specifically worked on the project but also the other individuals who supported them in some way (by taking up slack elsewhere, by providing consultations, etc.). He (my manager) thought this was an excellent idea and plans to bring it up at the next managers meeting. It will be most interesting to see if anything comes of this. I certainly hope it does.