Improving Participation of the Staff Meeting in a University - Essay Example

1. Introduction This research programme was planned and implemented in response to what I observed, over a significant period of time, to be an increasing problem with the efficiency and productivity of regular meetings in my department. These meetings are part of the formal management process that governs the activities of our group and as such are a focal point of our work. As I noted in my earlier Action Research Project Plan, which basically became the manual for this research, Hill defines management as "getting things done through and with other people" (Hill, ibid.). As the time has elapsed between writing that plan and concluding this research, I have become even more convinced that co-operation (the "through and with other people" of Hill's notion) is an essential behaviour if the work of our group is to prosper. It will be recalled from that project plan that I have chosen to pursue this work through the qualitative paradigm of Action Research as a practitioner- researcher. I hoped during the research to improving my own skills in facilitating meetings and to improve practice through the implementation of change in the way meetings are run in my workplace. To be a successful practitioner- researcher, I understood that I must achieve what Ritchie and Spencer (1994: 173) have called "actionable outcomes" in order to bring about the organisational change that I seek but that I must also maintain the academic rigour of the work. I found guidance for my approach to keeping this balance in the research in the work in Argyris' (1999: 432) who has made the social scientist's dilemma of choosing between rigour and relevance central to the way in which he has adapted Lewin's Action Research heritage. He concludes that: From the action researcher's perspective, the challenge is to define and meet standards of appropriate rigor without sacrificing relevance. (Italics in the original) Thus in mid November 2005 I began, with some confidence, to apply the wide range of data gathering techniques (including, collection of documentary evidence, observation, questionnaire, group discussion and analysis of my own reflective research journal) that I had planned earlier. I expected to do this within a highly practitioner centred approach that ensured academic appropriateness, rigour and relevance within the research as a whole. 2. An account of the situation and action to improve it I began the research by applying the data gathering methods that had been foreseen in the Action Research Project Plan. In this section I will report on the usage of these methods and demonstrate how they helped in the data collection process. Whilst each of these tools was used throughout the work, the emphasis and importance of each changed as the programme evolved and moved through the various cycles of the research from Reconnaissance to Review and Reflection. The programme of Reconnaissance data collection took place between the 1st November 2005 and Christmas of the same year with the data being analysed during the Christmas/New Year break. 2.1 Reflective research diary Firstly, I began to write my reflective research journal. This was quite a difficult task to maintain because although the early enthusiasm ensured that I sat down regularly at my computer I found that it was difficult to make the writing "reflective". I began to ask myself "what is it that makes this document a reflective journal and not just a diary" As a result of this difficulty I adopted an approach whereby I first wrote down a record of events and made notes of things that people had said or done during the period that I was recording. This was the diary phase of journal writing and was quite easy. I then got into the habit of going over the work and using the automatic highlighter, would colour code things that struck me as relevant to the ongoing research. It was through this routine that I developed my reflective skills and, for example, identified for myself the fact that one of my co-researchers had tendency to support bureaucratic solutions to problems and rarely took part in any of the informal discussions that the rest of the group had over lunch or at the gym; that some of us in the group had quite good informal relationships both inside and outside work or that my superior did not easily share information with the group. An example of an entry from my journal is shown as Appendix 1 below. 2.2 Documentary evidence My intention had always been to collect documentary evidence at the earliest possible time in the research. I began doing so according to the planned timetable and between November 2005 and the end of the year I succeeded in reviewing all the minutes of our meetings, which had begun in October 2004. I took copies of these documents (with the consent of my superior, whose written approval for the research I had acquired according to my plan) and also colour coded them in order to highlight themes that ran through the whole of our period together as a group. It became clear as I reviewed the material that there was an obvious blockage in our work for two reasons. Firstly, the structure of our meetings was very formal and dry. They would take the form of a question and answer session, so that our superior would ask "What is happening with this and this project", and then the person responsible for the project would reply very factually. There was no record of a wider discussion nor of any suggestions being made that might develop the project and improve its outcome. Secondly, I noticed that although we knew about research being carried out by others in the group, our superior would never present results to us. This led to resentment among the group that did not of course show up in the minutes, but which I knew existed and which could be explained by the absence of such information in the data that I was examining. I tried to confirm this impression by asking my superior for records of the research that had been carried out. She gave me some of the work but was very guarded about letting me take it away from her office and this behaviour seemed to confirm to me that she was not ready to share important information with the group. 2.3 Discussion Groups It was during this early period that I also began "off line" discussion groups with my colleagues. This was also in the Reconnaissance phase of the original research plan. The objectives of the group discussions were to explore the shared experiences of the team and to gain insight into how they saw themselves and their roles as members. I felt that these meetings would provide insights into the development of the group dynamics that were now part of our management process. Also these discussions allowed the group's criteria for success to be explored and assisted in the investigation of what the team thought was significant in the whole meeting management process. It became clear to me in these discussions that the two newest members of our group had actually become quite close friends and that since both members were cheerful and outgoing people this behaviour provided a big boost to the overall group atmosphere. However, there was also little doubt in my mind that our superior was suspicious of this relationship whilst the two members of the academic staff who attended our meetings could not quite accept that the size of our group had increased since its beginning and that as a result their influence had to some extent declined. Ultimately, I felt the team discussion phase of data collection to be important because it provided an opportunity to triangulate and verify other data collected by observing the group in session. 2.3 The observation sessions From November 2005 onwards I began observing our group meetings in my adopted role as practitioner-researcher in addition to my role as participant. This was difficult since I wanted to make my usual contribution but also found myself looking at the other participants from a different perspective. Like my superior, they had all agreed in writing to participate in the project and so I did not feel that these times of observation were in any way unethical - but they were certainly a strain for me. In observing each of the meetings the main objective was to see how the group functioned. The way in which the team leader planned, organized and assigned tasks would also be of interest. The emphasis was on observing the way in which communication worked between the individual team members and also on the reactions and demeanour of the participants. In order to avoid any accusations of covert observation which might arise despite the written agreement of participants, I ensured that each business part of our meetings was followed by a short debriefing session at which I would give my instant reactions to what had happened and would ask for comments from the participants. During these debriefing sessions, the way in which information about current projects was fed back to group would be discussed and an insight sought into how the team would deal with the next steps to be taken. I found that the feedback sessions also allowed me some degree of triangulation of the observations on team dynamics that I had made in the earlier business part of the meeting whilst the observation sessions as a whole assisted in the triangulation and verification of data from other sources. 2.4 Questionnaire As part of the Reconnaissance phase of the research I approached my colleagues with the Pfeiffer and Jones "Task/ Person (T/P) Questionnaire" which I hoped would give me a good insight into the orientation that each of our participants brought to the group meetings. It was at this point that I came up against my first real problem in rolling out the research programme. Whilst all my colleagues had agreed to take part in the work they seemed surprised to be confronted with a questionnaire to be filled out. I got the impression that some of them were worried about confidentiality issues - since we were only 7 in the group, including me, I would certainly know the outcome for each individual. There also was a feeling that with only 7 questionnaires being reported, all the other members of the group would be able to "guess" the results of the others. I think this made all the group members worried about the questionnaire. As a result of this problem, it took me a long time to get a complete set of questionnaires and, even then, one of my colleagues never did complete one. So the table below includes the scores for 6 out of our group of 7 and includes my own (MM) score. However, I was only able to put all this information together well towards the end of February 2006 and so the data that this table contains were available too late to actually have an effect on the interventions that had to be made during January if the research was to be finished on time. Respondent T Score P Score AA 14 5 CC 11 10 DD 11 9 EE 16 3 FF 7 10 MM 10 12 Now that I do have the questionnaire data, it is interesting to see that my superior (AA) has a very high task orientation and almost the lowest people orientation. Also she has the same pattern of response as EE who I think is very focused on her work and not very imaginative. Me and my colleagues CC and DD get on very well both in work and outside. CC is an old university friend of mine. The three of us have similar patterns between "P" and "T" which are quite balanced and may explain why we get on so well and all want the group to work better together. FF is always in trouble with AA but he is a very nice guy. He is important to our group because he is academic staff, but if these scores mean anything then perhaps he is too laid back about his work Is that why AA doesn't seem to like him I did not use any of this data, as mentioned earlier, in designing interventions for the research but it is interesting to see what patterns have emerged from the questionnaire. It is even very telling that the one person who I think is bureaucratic did not fill one in ever! 3. An interpretation of the situation and action to improve it Once the Reconnaissance phase of my Action Research Project Plan was completed around the turn of the year 2005/2006, I began to think about those things that I had foreseen in the Design and Implementation of Change phase. I had expected this to run from mid-January 2006 for a month or so. However, in reality I found that our meetings were getting more and more tense and less and less productive. It became obvious that if the research was to have an effect I had to plan interventions as soon as possible. It was also clear to me that I had to do this with the co-operation of my co-researchers. I decided that I had to implement a discipline to the meeting process that is well described by Howard and Barton (1992). The following areas were eventually chosen by our group as those in which we needed to improve: 1) Agenda Planning 2) Ground rules for behaviour during the meeting 3) A facilitating strategy 4) A set of objectives for the meeting 5) An agreed mechanism for decision taking 6) The formulation of next steps 7) A target date for their completion and for the next meeting It seemed to be a very simple solution to the problem and I began talking to my colleagues enthusiastically about how we might implement the new process. My idea was to take the implementation a step at a time and to first work on good agenda setting. As I began to ask my co-researchers for their suggestions for the next agenda for a forthcoming mid-January meeting I found that no suggestions were made. I was very surprised because I thought that they wanted the meetings to be better. Eventually I realised that everyone was afraid of making the first call ahead of our superior. No one wanted to be seen to be ahead of the game. In the end I went to the superior and asked her if she would approve an agenda that I had made up after listening to what people were saying informally in the group. She agreed without too much difficulty and so our first agenda was set. There was clearly a tension in our group that was there as a direct result of the leadership style of the superior. Most people were in some way frightened of her reactions; maybe two people just did not want to even be involved. Certainly the whole atmosphere in the group is affected by the way in which the leader behaves and manages the work of the group. It seems that this bad leadership in turn has an effect on the motivation of the group members. I am quite happy in my work but that is because I am able to see our superior most days and even thought she does not easily share information I do get to know what is going on. However, I can understand that the two members of the group who did not even want to become involved in the agenda setting are demotivated since they do not have access to as much information as me and anyway keep on getting in trouble with our superior who does not properly explain what they have done wrong. This first meeting with the agenda that I set with AA went quite well, definitely more people spoke during it and I think that some of them had prepared better than for earlier meetings. Afterwards though I got feed back from BB and DD that they thought that AA was nervous during the discussion, almost as if she felt that she was losing power in the group. Since my first agenda setting meeting with AA had gone well, I decided to talk to her about the second improvement I hoped to bring about through the research. This was my aim to get better facilitation of the discussion in meetings and I was quite nervous when I suggested that we bring in a meeting facilitation consultant to act as a "critical friend". This had been one of my planned interventions in the Action Research Project Plan but I did not expect to be doing this so early in the whole process of change. I originally thought that I would do this once all our internal problems were solved. I was again surprised when AA reacted to my suggestion quite positively and told me to find someone to help us out. The comments of BB and DD had made me think that AA would feel my proposal was further eroding her power in the group but she did not seem to see it that way. So a few days later I arranged for her to meet an outside consultant and I know that AA had at least two meetings with her before our next group meeting. After that next meeting we all felt that AA was behaving differently. She was stiffer in her manner but seemed to be trying to get other people involved much more. I do not think that everyone was pleased at this change because they were not certain that this represented real change in AA's behaviour - but everyone decided to give the change a chance. Things were so much better that when I came to set the agenda for our third meeting I got plenty of suggestions for items. FF even suggested that we put on the agenda discussion on whether we should vote on decisions that were to be made. This was very brave of him but BB (the bureaucratic one) also thought this was a good idea and told FF that she would support him in the discussion. As the agenda was passed around before the meeting, AA definitely had time to prepare for this and probably discussed it with the facilitation coach who actually attended this third meeting. It was obvious that AA was very unhappy with the voting plan but that everyone else in the group wanted to have it in our procedures. The facilitator gave support to the idea but it was really BB and FF who kept on pushing for it. The informal structures of the group were strong and although BB and FF were not usually allies, in this matter they succeeded in getting all their arguments together and showed how the informal route can sometimes be stronger than the formal decision making routines and structures. It was at this meeting that the outside facilitator made a presentation showing how "follow up" and "milestone" checking was an important way to get progress out of meetings. We decided that we would start putting deadlines in for various activities that we undertook as a group and that the individual responsible would be accountable for keeping to the deadlines. We also decided to set the date of the next meeting before ending the current one and that this would be a good way to maintain the discipline of regular meetings and of enforcing the keeping of agreed deadlines. I think that AA liked this idea, probably because she is very task oriented (see Questionnaire tabulation above) and this was a way for her to maintain some control on the jobs being done. For the other members of the group this was an important step because it made very clear the lines of responsibility in the group and also was a step forward in cementing collaboration as a key process in the way we would work in the future. 3.1 Evaluation of the effectiveness of the research programme As I write up the report on this research I am please that the meetings that we now have seem to be going better. There is a structure to the way in which we plan them, to the way they are carried out and to the follow-up process. As I talk to my colleagues informally, I think that most of them are also pleased and feel that there has been some improvement to our situation. For example, BB likes the structures as she likes a bureaucracy generally; then, FF is very people oriented and he is pleased that people are participating more in the meetings. Really, there were three critical moments in the research programme. The first was when I set the first agenda with AA, the second was when I brought forward the idea of the external meeting facilitator and finally the decision to bring in voting at the meetings. I am left wondering if all the other work that was carried out from the start of the research actually had any effect on the situation At about the middle of January 2006 I felt that my original research programme had fallen apart. I was doing things in a different order than I had expected (I introduced the external facilitator much earlier than planned), I was missing out things (we never had a more formal action plan than the one I drew up as my original Action Research Project Plan) and things were not being completed (the questionnaire was never done by all of my colleagues and was done late by most of them). However, my colleagues now tell me that the programme has gone very well. They say that all the preparation work and discussions (and even the questionnaire!) brought focus to the issue of our meetings and that they all felt that at last something was happening. One of them has even told me that they think that AA was trapped into improving her leadership style. I hope that she keeps it up! 4. Conclusions and recommendation It is useful to refer back to Table 2 of the Action Research Project Plan (included below as Appendix 3 for ease of reference) which sets out evaluation criteria for this work in some detail. Against the criteria in the table I think that the research has been a success and that a fair claim can be made for having answered the research questions. Participation in the preparation of meetings is noticeably better and I feel that my own skills in preparation and facilitation have also improved. Participation at meetings has increased and discussion is much more lively than it was. There is also a general sense that everyone in the team is more involved and responsible for the outcome of individual projects. However, Alvesson and Skldberg (2000: 245) put the bar of evaluation higher and perhaps more comprehensively when they discuss the meaning of reflection in Action Research: Reflection means thinking about the conditions for what one is doing, investigating the way in which the theoretical, cultural and political context of individual and intellectual involvement affects interaction with whatever is being researched. Against such a criterion, it might be said that everything in the research went too fast for reflection, a critical aspect of Action Research, to have taken place. I also wonder if, in a project that lasted just a few months, I can claim to have brought about iteration to the way in which our original difficulties were dealt with Reflection, I find, is not easy. Getting one layer below the data involves a quite personal thought process, but I have found that stimulus for reflection can come from unexpected places and at most inconvenient times - such as the moment when I took courage to propose the setting of agendas to AA. I have at times thought that the process of collaboration between me and my co-researchers might have been better managed. In any future Action Research projects that I may undertake, I will place more emphasis on working with my co-researchers. Upon reflection I think that I might have placed too much emphasis on working "through" people (ibid. Hill) rather than "with" people. However, I am satisfied that I achieved "actionable outcomes" in the manner of Richie and Spencer (ibid.) but am very aware that the changes that have been brought about in the way we work as a group are very fragile. It only will need one person to withdraw their collaboration or for a new member to join the group who does not understand the dynamics of our meeting process to break down all the good work. I will have to make sure that I pay attention to keeping the research and its effects "alive" as time goes on or all the effort may be wasted. Now that I understand better the reality of Action Research, my adoption of the term 'practitioner-researcher' in the early stages of this research seems to have been brave! I could not then have known, nor understood, the rewards that working in such a role for three months would bring. Today, I would agree with Torbert's (1992) view that in addition to being a tool towards establishing a collaborative and reflective organisational community, Action Research is a personal development tool. I am surprised to find that in undertaking this research I began a process of self-discovery that goes far beyond the confines of my work and which I feel is far from over. Reference and bibliography Argyris, C., (1999) On organisational learning, (2nd ed.), Oxford, UK, Blackwell Business. Alvesson, M. & K. Skldberg, (2000), Reflexive methodology - new vistas for qualitative research, (1st ed.), London, SAGE Publications Inc. Doyle, Michael & David Strauss, (1982) How to Make Meetings Work, New York, Jove Books. Howard, V.A. & J.H. Barton, (1992). Thinking Together: Making Meetings Work,. New York, William Morrow and Company, Inc. Peters, T. J. & N. Austen, (1994) A passion for excellence: The leadership difference, New York, NY., Random House. Ritchie, J. & l. Spencer, (1994), Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research: In: A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (eds.), Analyzing qualitative data, London, Routledge. Silverman, D., (1997), The logic of qualitative research, In: G. Miller & R. Dingwall (eds.), Context and method in quantitative research, London, UK., Sage Publications. Torbert, W. R. & D.Fisher, (1992) Autobiographical awareness as a catalyst for managerial and organisational development, Journal of Management Education and Development, 23 (3), pp 184-198 Appendices Appendix 1. Extract from reflective diary for Tuesday 10th January. It was a very busy day at the office today - I am feeling very tired because apart from a long conversation with AA (my superior - explanatory note) about the Kowloon project I had to redo my address book in my hard disk due to a system crash. I told BB (one of the two academic staff in our group - explanatory note) that she should get into her address book too and see if it works - but she said that the system administrator had not given her permission to do so. I told her that if she did not then all her e-mail system would screw up. After work I went to the gym for a game of badminton with CC and DD (Education Officer and Research Assistant in my group - explanatory note) - I played badly as I was hungry before we started. DD said that she had told BB about the Kowloon project but that she had refused to get involved in the conversation and said that she was waiting for the first draft of the report from me. Told DD that I hadn't started it yet CC and DD seem to be getting on very well and when we had a coke after the game they said that they might look for an apartment together. I doubt if CC's parents will agree - we shall see. Tomorrow I must start working on the agenda for the next meeting. Our meeting is more administrative-oriented and I want to get away from the usual topics like: : a) Progress report on what we've done - AA only asks something about current projects and we reply something without adding personal comments or elaboration. We should have possibility to add to the discussion. b) Planning on activities/ conference/ workshops. AA always takes initiative to discuss fancy ideas on her mind, and ask for our opinion on whether go ahead or not. Frankly speaking, none of our fellow colleagues would dare to confront her directly. Even have such rare cases, our head will try to convince the confronter in every effort to accept her ideas. AA should change her style or this will never work. c) Distribution of work. Again, we seldom have chance to determine what we should do. Most likely AA would assign tasks to us. One more thing, she (AA, my superior - explanatory note) - would never discuss research projects with us and we need this information. XXX BB seems to be very bureaucratic today XXX I am beginning to think that that AA has a dominant management style XXX Evidence of good informal relationships amongst some members of the group Appendix 2 Analysis of data from Pfeiffer and Jones "Task/ Person (T/P) Questionnaire" The questionnaire was given to all my co-researchers before the end of December 2005. I expected speedy completion by all 6 respondents. In the event I had great difficulty getting the questionnaires filled in and received the final one in February 2006. As I eventually got each one from the respondents, I transferred the paper data onto a pre-prepared Excel spread sheet that colour coded the following: 1) The items that were of significance if answered "seldom" or "never" - Yellow. 2) The items that were of significance if answered "always" or "frequently" - Turq. 3) The items that contributed to Person Orientation (P) Score - Olive. 4) The items that contributed to Task Orientation (T) Score - Pink. 5) Actual responses were filled in Black. This colour coding made it easier for me to determine individual respondents "P" scores (XO in each individual table) and "T" scores (X in each individual table) by following this routine: 1) If Black response boxes match to Yellow items with S or N replies - score X 2) If Black response boxes match to Turq items with A or F replies - score X 3) If X corresponds to an Olive mark - circle the X 4) If X corresponds to an Pink mark - leave X uncircled 5) Count circled Xs. These equal the P score 6) Count uncircled Xs. These equal the T score An example of a scored questionnaire is provided below. The responded has score of P3T16. Respondent 1 RESPONSES ITEM A F O S N 1 X 2 X 3 4 X 5 6 X 7 X 8 9 X 10 XO 11 12 XO 13 14 X 15 16 X 17 18 X 19 20 X 21 X 22 23 24 25 X 26 27 X 28 29 30 XO 31 X 32 33 X 34 35 X Person Orientation Score (P) 3 Task Orientation Score (T) 16 KEY Response Responses noted for S or N outcome Responses noted for A or F outcome Contributor to "P" Score Contributor to "T" Score X Element of this respondents "T" score XO Element of this respondents "P" score Appendix 3 Taken from original Action Research Project Plan Table 2: Evaluation of the action research project in terms of aims, criteria of success, evidences and methods of Read More