It is now officially announced. I have volunteered to be the chair of the Team and Excellence Forum for the ASQ.
The Team and Excellence Forum is well placed to develop and provide best practices in the input and process factors, and to develop competencies that the other technical divisions and forums can leverage. Areas such as facilitation, team organization, collaboration and the list goes on. In the last few months I have found myself narrowing in to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Division for my professional/technical competencies and the Team and Workplace Excellence will be the focus on my interests in social and self competencies.
As the announcement indicates I am currently pulling together a leadership team -we will need to fill at minimum a secretary and chair elect (the chair position for the forum runs through 2021 so I’m not going anywhere) – and folks to build and drive content.
My immediate goals are:
Conduct a voice-of-the-customer survey – need to figure out what topics the membership is most interested in and what content formats (case studies, podcasts, webinars, videos, articles, etc) work best
Build content on the my.ASQ community so it can go public
Create a 2020 business plan aligned to the ASQ strategic priorities (due in September)
An exciting year is ahead. If you are a member of the ASQ and looking for volunteer opportunities, and your interests align with Team Excellence, then drop me an email.
I have been spending a lot of time lately thinking about how to best build and grow knowledge communities within quality. One of my objectives at WCQI this year was to get more involved in the divisions and technical forums and I, frankly, might have been overly successful in volunteering for the Team and Workplace Excellence Forum (TWEF) – more on that later when announcements have been made.
Communities should be independent of organizational structure; they are built around areas upon which members wish to interact.
The divisions and technical forums are one part of the organizational structure of the ASQ, but they tend to be more on the knowledge generating side of things. The other major membership unit, sections, are geographical.
Divisions and forums are basically broken in two categories: industry type(s) and activity band.
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic or Biomedical are great examples of industry focused (these are by nature of my work the only two I’ve paid attention to), and they seem to be very focused on product integrity questions.
The activity bands are all over the place. For example in the People and Service technical committee there is a Quality Management, Human Development and Leadership and a Team Excellence Forum. Those three have serious overlap.
It is of interest to me that the other divisions in the People and Service technical committee are Education, Healthcare, Government, Customer Supplier and Service Quality, which are much more industry focused.
And then there is the Social Responsibility division. I have super respect for those people, because they are basically trying to reinvent the definition of quality in a way that can be seen as anathema to the traditional product integrity focused viewpoint.
There is still so much to figure out about the TCCs.
Communities are different from teams; they are based on topics, not on assignments.
Easy enough in the ASQ as this is a volunteer organization.
Communities are not sites, team spaces, blogs or wikis; they are groups of people who choose to interact.
As the ASQ tries to develop my.ASQ to something folks are actually using, this is a critical principle. The site pages will grow and be used because people are interacting, not drive interaction.
Ravelry seems like a great example on how to do this right. Anyone know of any white papers on Ravelry?
Community leadership and membership should be voluntary; you can suggest that people join, but should not force them to.
Divisions are voluntary to join, and people get involved if they chose to.
Communities should span boundaries; they should cross functions, organizations, and geographic locations.
The ASQ has this mostly right.
The industry focused communities are made up of members across companies, with a wide spread of locations.
Minimize redundancy in communities; before creating a new one, check if an existing community already addresses the topic.
The ASQ hasn’t done a great job of this. One of my major thoughts is that the Quality Management Division has traditionally claimed ownership of the CMQ/OE body of knowledge, but frankly a good chunk of it should be between the Team Excellence and Human Development divisions, which between them seem to have a fair bit of overlap.
Take change management, or project management, or program management. Which one of the three divisions should be focusing on that? All three? Seems a waste of effort. It’s even worse that I know the Lean Division spends a fair amount talking about this.
Communities need critical mass; take steps to build membership.
The major dilemma for professional associations. Love to see your suggestions in the comments.
Communities should start with as broad a scope as is reasonable; separate communities can be spun off if warranted.
I’m going to say a radical and unpopular thought. If the ASQ was serious about transformation it would have dissolved half of the divisions and then rebuilt them from scratch. Too many are relics of the past and are not relevant in their current construction. Do you truly need a Lean and a Six Sigma forum? A Team Excellence and a Human development (and a quality management).Should biomedical (medical devices) be part of the FDC?
Communities need to be actively nurtured; community leaders need to create, build, and sustain communities.
To do this community leaders need training, coaching and mentoring. I’m happy with the connections I’ve started building in headquarters and with a certain board member.
Perhaps one of the focuses of the Team and Workplace Excellence Forum should be to help push the praxis on this.
Communities can be created, led, and supported using TARGETs: Types (TRAIL — Topic, Role, Audience, Industry, Location) Activities (SPACE — Subscribe, Post, Attend, Contribute, Engage) Requirements (SMILE — Subject, Members, Interaction, Leaders, Enthusiasm) Goals (PATCH — Participation, Anecdotes, Tools, Coverage, Health) Expectations (SHAPE — Schedule, Host, Answer, Post, Expand) Tools (SCENT — Site, Calendar, Events, News, Threads).
Okay. So much here. But this helps me build an agenda for a forthcoming meeting.
I may be jumping the gun, but if you are a member of the ASQ and interested in contributing to the Team and Excellence Forum, contact me.
A Goal is generally described as an effort directed towards an end. In project management, for example, the term goal is to three different target values of performance, time and resources. To be more specific, the project goal specifies the desired outcome (performance), the specific end date (time) and the assigned amount of resources (resources). A goal answers to “What” is the main aim of the project.
An Objective defines the tangible and measurable results of the team to support the agreed goal and meet the planned end time and other resource restrictions. It answers to “How” something is to be done.
I think many of us are familiar with the concept of SMART goals. Lately I’ve been using FAST objectives.
Transparency provides the connective tissue, and must be a primary aspect of any quality culture. Transparency is creating a free flow within an organization and between the organization and its many stakeholders. This flow of information is the central nervous system of an organization and it’s effectiveness depends on it. Transparency influences the capacity to solve problems, innovate, meet challenges and as shown above, meet goals.
This information flow is simply that critical information gets to the right person at the right time and for the right reason. By making our goals transparent we can start that process and make a difference in our organizations.
More a collection of topics for things I am currently exploring. Please add additional ones and/or resources in the comments.
Increasing collaborative modes of working, specifically more: Matrix structures (Cross et al. 2013, 2016; Cross and Gray 2013) (Distributed) Teamwork (Cross et al. 2015) (Multi-) Project work (Zika-Viktorsson et al. 2006) and multiple team membership (O`Leary et al. 2011) Interruptions, which are ‘normal’ or even as a necessary part of knowledge workers’ workday (Wajcman and Rose 2011) Collaboration, which is seen as an end (Breu et al. 2005; Dewar et al. 2009; Gardner 2017; Randle 2017)
Collaborative work is highly demanding (Barley et al. 2011; Dewar et al. 2009; Eppler and Mengis 2004) Perils of multitasking (Atchley 2010; Ophir et al. 2009; Turkle 2015) Too many structurally unproductive and inefficient teams (Duhigg 2016) Lack of accountability for meeting and conference call time (Fried 2016) Overall, lack of structural protection of employee’s productive time (Fried 2016)
Impacts of collaborative technology Growing share of social technologies in the workplace (Bughin et al. 2017) ‘Always on’ mentality, cycle of responsiveness (Perlow 2012) Platforms are designed to prime and nudge users to spend more time using them (Stewart 2017)
Unclear organizational expectations how to use collaborative technology and limited individual knowledge (Griffith 2014; Maruping and Magni 2015) Technology exacerbates organizational issues (Mankins 2017) Inability to ‘turn off’ (Perlow 2012) Technology creates more complexity than productivity gains (Stephens et al. 2017) Increasing complex media repertoires: highly differentiated, vanishing common denominator (Greene 2017; Mankins 2017) Social technology specific Increased visibility (Treem and Leonardi 2013) and thus the ability to monitor behaviour Impression management and frustration (Farzan et al. 2008) Overall, overload scenarios and fragmentation of work (Cross et al. 2015; Wajcman and Rose 2011)
Increasing ratio of collaborative activities for managers (Mankins and Garton 2017; Mintzberg 1990) and employees (CEB 2013; Cross and Gray 2013)
Workdays are primarily characterized by communication and collaboration.
Managers at intersections of matrix structures get overloaded (Feintzeig 2016; Mankins and Garton 2017) Limited knowledge how to shape collaboration on the managerial level (Cross and Gray 2013; Maruping and Magni 2015) Experts and structurally exposed individuals (e.g. boundary spanners) easily get overburdened with requests (Cross et al. 2016; Cross and Gray 2013).
Behavioral traits (‘givers’) may push employees close burn-outs (Grant 2013; Grant and Rebele 2017) Diminishing ‘perceived control’ over one’s own schedule (Cross and Gray 2013)
Overall, managers and employees do not have enough uninterrupted time (Cross et al. 2016; Mankins and Garton 2017)
Cross, R., Ernst, C., Assimakopoulos, D., and Ranta, D. 2015. “Investing in boundary-spanning collaboration to drive efficiency and innovation,” Organizational Dynamics (44:3), pp. 204–216.
Cross, R., and Gray, P. 2013. “Where Has the Time Gone? Addressing Collaboration Overload in a Networked Economy,” California Management Review (56:1), pp. 1–17.
Cross, R., Kase, R., Kilduff, M., and King, Z. 2013. “Bridging the gap between research and practice in organizational network analysis: A conversation between Rob Cross and Martin Kilduff,” Human Resource Management (52:4), pp. 627–644.
Cross, R., Rebele, R., and Grant, A. 2016. “Collaborative Overload,” Harvard Business Review (94:1), pp. 74–79.
Dewar, C., Keller, S., Lavoie, J., and Weiss, L. M. 2009. “How do I drive effective collaboration to deliver real business impact?,” McKinsey & Company.
Duhigg, C. 2016. Smarter, Faster, Better – The Secrets of Being Productive in Life and Business, New York, USA: Penguin Random House.
Eppler, M. J., and Mengis, J. 2004. “The Concept of Information Overload: A Review of Literature from Organization Science, Accounting, Marketing, MIS, and Related Disciplines,” The Information Society (20:5), pp. 325–344.
Farzan, R., DiMicco, J. M., Millen, D. R., Brownholtz, B., Geyer, W., and Dugan, C. 2008. “Results from Deploying a Participation Incentive Mechanism within the Enterprise,” in Proceedings of the 26th SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy.
Treem, J. W., and Leonardi, P. M. 2013. “Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association,” Annals of the International Communication Association (36:1), pp. 143–189.
Turkle, S. 2015. Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age, New York, USA: Pinguin Press.
We often try to solve problems as if we are outside them. When people describe a problem you will see them pointing away from themselves – you hear the word “them” a lot. “They” are seen as the problem. However, truly hard problems are system problems, and if you are part of the system (hint – you are) then you are part of the problem.
Being inside the problem means we have to understand bias and our blind spots – both as individuals, as teams and as organizations.
Understanding our blind spots
An easy tool to start thinking about this is the Johari window, a technique that helps people better understand their relationship with themselves and others. There are two axis, others and self. This forms four quadrants:
Arena – What is known by both self and others. It is also often referred to as the Public Area.
Blind spot – This region deals with knowledge unknown to self but visible to others, such as shortcomings or annoying habits.
Façade – This includes the features and knowledge of the individual which are not known to others. I prefer when this is called the Hidden. It was originally called facade because it can include stuff that is untrue but for the individual’s claim.
Unknown – The characteristics of the person that are unknown to both self and others.
An example of a basic Johari Window (my own) can be found here.
Users are advised to reduce the area of ‘blind spot’ and ‘unknown’, while expand the ‘arena’. The premise is that the lesser the hidden personality, the better the person becomes in relating with other people.
The use of Johari Window is popular among business coaches as
a cognitive tool to understand intrapersonal and interpersonal relationships. There
isn’t much value of this tool as an empirical framework and it hasn’t held up
to academic rigor. Still, like many such things it can bring to light the
central point that we need to understand our hidden biases.
The Johari Window can also be applied to knowledge transparency, and it fits nicely to the concepts of tacit and explicit knowledge bringing to light knowledge-seeking and knowledge-sharing behavior. For example, the ‘arena’ can simply become the ‘unknown’ if there is no demand or offer pertaining to the knowledge to be occupied by the recipient or to be shared by the owner, respectively.
The Johari Window transforms with the the four quadrants changing to:
Arena – What the organization knows it knows. Contains knowledge available to the team as well as related organizations. Realizing such improvements is usually demanded by network partners and should be priority for implementation.
Façade – What the organization does know it knows. Knowledge that is only available to parts of the focal organization. Derived improvements are unexpected, but beneficial for the organization and its collaborations.
Blind Spot – What the organization knows it does not know. Knowledge only available to other organizations – internal and external. This area should be investigated with highest priority, to benefit from insights and to maintain effectiveness.
Unknown – What the organization does not know it does not know, and what the organization believes it knows but does not actually know. Knowledge about opportunities for improvement that is not available to anyone. Its identification leads to the Façade sector.