LDRS 591 Activity 8.2
Category: Unit 8
LDRS 591 Activity 8.1
Action research is a new term and concept for me. I have been a consumer of research for a long time, but the formal research process has always been intimidating to me. Reading Plano-Clark and Creswell’s (2015) chapter in action research, I realized that to practice action research one does not have to be a trained researcher; the primary prerequisites being inquisitiveness, a desire to improve one’s practice, and basic knowledge of research practices.
The top three problems at my work place where I could apply action research are:
- A number of my patients live in institutional settings like nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Many of them have diseases for which dietary modification is necessary. Since the patients don’t always have control of their meals, it is very difficult for them to comply with the recommended diets. I wonder how we can make sure patient diets are complied with? This issue can be addressed with action research involving patients, colleagues, administrative representatives from assisted livings and nutritionists.
- I work in a Geriatric clinic, with a lot of our patients being disabled because of various health conditions or age. A lot of them have disabled parking permits. I often hear complaints from patients that it takes them a long time to find parking in one of the designated handicap parking spots, or they have to park in non-handicap parking spots and walk a long distance. How can we provide more convenient parking to geriatric patients, without using up more than our designated paring space in an institution ? I would like to engage with my colleagues, some patient representatives and organizational leadership to address this issue.
- Office space in our clinic is not spacious. Physicians do not have individual offices, instead we share one big space that is sectioned into cubicles. Our desks are placed quite close together and at a time there could be 7 physicians in that space. Our desk work involves dictating or typing patient notes, making phone calls to patients or family members, interacting with our office staff in one to one or phone conversation, occasional consultations amongst ourselves of over the phone with our physicians etc. Sometimes this creates a lot of background noise, precluding critical thinking. How can noise be better managed in a shared working space? would like to try and address this issues with action research involving my colleagues, clinic staff, organizational leadership.
Since these are local problems limited to my practice setting, I could implement most of the steps as outlined by Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015, p. 440). The biggest constraint I foresee is time. I could consult with my colleagues and try to recruit some of them as co-researchers.
Reference
Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
I am writing in response to Sadie’s post https://create.twu.ca/sadiethompson/2017/11/18/unit-8-la-1/
I am glad she brought to light the issue women in the workplace who are contemplating motherhood. I was fortunate in having had plenty of help bringing up my children , and having a supportive family that I could rely on before I moved to the North American continent.
I have seen a lot of friends and colleagues struggle with this. As I wrote in one of my previous responses, women ( and women alone) have the gift ( some call it responsibility ) of being the bearers of our future children. In my opinion this should automatically out them at an exalted position, instead women are thought of as liabilities or disadvantages. It is a well established fact that in addition to child bearing, most of the child rearing responsibilities also fall upon women. I don’t claim to have answer to this issue that leaders and women’s advocates have grappled with for decades. What I do know that society needs to rally around our women and make them feel supported in their struggle to fulfil family and work responsibilities. As Sadie points out that to bring about a change in values, education has to begin in childhood. The current generation of leaders in hiring positions were brought up with different values, but with new awareness and education, hopefully the next generations will appreciate the role of women in the workplace better.
This is in response to Timothy DeHaan’s post
It is heartening to hear that there are some men who are very comfortable with women holding leadership roles alongside them or sometimes above them. On the other hand Tim also brings to light the point that traditionally and also in some religions men have been considered to be the leaders and women as the supporters. I am not a religious scholar, but from what little I know of all religions, this is the basic premise of all of them. While this was a well accepted model which worked for in those times, the present times are markedly different. There were no roles for women in the hunter-gatherer side of community life, and women were relegated to the home and child care responsibilities. We live in very different times . And changing times need change in rules and perceptions. The debate around whether women have a place in the workplace is a very archaic one and I believe has been settled a couple of generations prior to us . Women are key players in the workplace and everyone seems to have come to terms with that, to a more or less extent. What we as a society now need to think now is whether we are going to give the women equal opportunities or we are going to be roadblocks in their progress, with the futile hope of regressing to past times ? Being a woman with leadership aspirations, to me this is a very simple matter of choice. If a woman wants to be a home maker , then society needs to applaud her for her contribution, If she chooses to be in the workplace, then all anyone needs to do is give her a fair and equal opportunity. Women do have an added biological responsibility ( or gift ) of being the bearers of the next generation. If anything, this should afford them an exalted position, rather than them getting penalized for it.
Unit 8 activity 3
My take away from the video ‘Unconscious bias @work- making the unconscious conscious’ (2014), was that our environment and past experiences exert influences on our decision making that we are not always aware of. To avoid letting our unconscious bias affect our perception of people and hence decision making, we need to always be on guard about it. This is also an exercise in critical thinking. In another YouTube video titled ‘Understanding unconscious bias’(2015) the speaker mentions that the “unconscious mind can process information faster than the conscious mind… by creating shortcuts”. Since then I have consciously been critical of my first impressions, and not always trusting them, since they might be a product of my bias.
In the Trusted 10 exercise, at first I was floundering and not able to make sense of my results. I then decided to split the exercise into 2 part: in the first part I wrote names of 10 people I know socially and the second part was done with 10 people I know professionally. The results surprised me! My social group were 8 women and 2 men. They were all in the age group 40-50 years, similar ethnicity and background as me. In terms of education they were variable from high school to post graduate. In the professional group, there was more diversity. Out of the ten people that came to mind, 6 were women and 4 men, they were mixed in terms of religion and ethnic background, all with graduate or post grad education, ages 40-60. A possible theory to explain this difference is that I don’t have control over work place demographic mix, whereas in my social life I can choose who I interact with. I did not attempt the ring activity with the workplace people. In the social group the people in the innermost ring were the ones who were most like me, or similar to me in most of the parameters on the worksheet. My explanation for this is that when it comes to ‘people i can trust in my home’, there is an instinctive gravitation towards people who are alike you in as many respects as possible.
I am very glad that in the workplace my results were more varied and diverse. I know it for a fact that at work I am very comfortable with people from different backgrounds and with different abilities. I will take this awareness into my future role as leader. In any hiring or promotions, I will always be critical of my motive behind the decision, and most importantly not let first impressions be the determinant of a person’s ability. As for allocating ‘stretch assignments’ to motivate employees, as mentioned in the Unit notes, I would be more cautious. I agree that giving someone a task that is slightly outside their comfort zone, could be a great motivator to excel. At the same time leaders have to be aware of the limitations of employees’ abilities, so as not to give them a task that is beyond their ability, and hence set them up for failure. There is a very thin line between ‘pushing the boundaries’ and failure. Leaders carry the responsibility of ensuring that employees are adequately challenged, but not at the cost of having them fail and hence lose confidence, and jeopardizing organizational goals in the process.
References
Unconscious Bias @ Work — Making the Unconscious Conscious. (2014, September 25). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW5s_-Nl3JE&feature=youtu.be
Understanding unconscious bias. (2015, November, 17). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVp9Z5k0dEE
Unit notes, Unit 8
Unit 8 activity 2
In the Gender-Leader Implicit Association test, I scored -1. This indicates that I do not associate male with leader, and female with supporter. I suppose this is not surprising given that I am female, and pursuing education in leadership. After I went through the test, I did think of a few other women in my life and wondered how they would fare on this test!
The Catalyst Report did not have a definition for inclusion that I understood and connected with, so I researched other resources. “Inclusion is a call to action within the workforce that means actively involving every employee’s ideas, knowledge, perspectives, approaches, and styles to maximize business success.” (Shirley Engelmeier, 2012, as quoted in an interview to Forbes). As per the catalyst report employees feel included when they experience ‘uniqueness’ and ‘belonging’. When employees feel unique and that they belong, they report feeling team oriented and innovative. When they feel excluded or devalued, it might compromise job performance and satisfaction.
I am fortunate to work in a field that has a significant female representation. This is particularly the case in my organization; most of the staff in my clinic is female, and there seems to be proportionate representation in leadership. Healthcare in my opinion is one of the fields where gender bias is not as predominant as in some other fields. I believe another field where the gender representation is more or less balanced is education. I confess that this is my anecdotal experience, and not supported by data. This in fact was disproved after I read the article provided by our prof in her update- “even in culturally feminine settings such as nursing, librarianship, elementary education, and social work (all specifically studied by sociologist Christine Williams), men ascend to supervisory and administrative positions more quickly than women”. (Eagly & Carli, 2007). This was indeed an eye opener for me! I stand corrected, and humbled.
I will list a few of the things that I think any workplace would benefit from having in place, to foster sense of belonging amongst women-
-educate and train leaders and employees about gender based bias and prejudice.
-promote opportunities for women to bring up their concerns without fear of retaliation, especially if the leadership is male predominant.
-provide opportunities for flexible work hours, or work-from-home options where applicable.
-adopt family friendly policies for women with families, especially younger families.
-peer mentorship.
-non punitive culture towards women in relation to pregnancy and maternity related issues.
-consider allowing women of child bearing age and women with young children a few more days of leave (I say this with some trepidation, as I am sure this could open the doors to a plethora of other questions and concerns, and could be construed as biased in itself)
Following are some ideas that the Catalyst report enlists to improve overall employee sense of inclusion:
“-pay attention to the human elements.( Travis & Pollack)
-monitor progress and communicate with employees.
-have one to one meetings, seek feedback.
-role model inclusive behavior.
-avoid making jokes about a particular demographic.
-make inclusion visible to employees.
-be liberal in giving credit.”
There were some very valuable suggestions by Eagly & Carli (2007), to help navigate ‘the labyrinth’. These are more applicable to our previous activity, but I will mention it here since I read this article after I had posted my blog for the first activity-I quote from the article:
“-Increase people’s awareness of the psychological drivers of prejudice toward female leaders, and work to dispel those perceptions.
-Change the long-hours norm.
-Reduce the subjectivity of performance evaluation.
-Use open-recruitment tools, such as advertising and employment agencies, rather than relying on informal social networks and referrals to fill positions.
-Ensure a critical mass of women in executive positions—not just one or two women—to head off the problems that come with tokenism.
-Avoid having a sole female member of any team.
-Help shore up social capital.
-Prepare women for line management with appropriately demanding assignments.
-Establish family-friendly human resources practices.
-Allow employees who have significant parental responsibility more time to prove themselves worthy of promotion.
-Welcome women back.
-Encourage male participation in family-friendly benefits.”
I will close by mentioning a few other noteworthy points from the Catalyst Report. As per them inclusion and exclusion co-exist in the workplace. Inclusion is usually invisible, and exclusion is more obvious, or ‘salient’ as the authors call it.They also point out that there is a common perception that diversity is synonymous with inclusion, whereas this is infact not the case.
References:
Eagly, A. & Carli, L.L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review.
Light from many lamps unit 8
Sir William Osler- A Way of Life
Sir William Osler was a Canadian physician, who is also known as the father of modern medicine. He was one of the four founding professors of Sir Johns Hopkins hospital (Wikipedia). He reminisces that as a young student he had yearned for a simple philosophy by which to live his life by. A sentence in a book by Thomas Carlyle gave him the answer “our main business is not too see what lies dimly at a distance, but to do what lies clearly at hand”. He shared this philosophy with students at Yale in his speech titled “A Way of Life”. He attempted to make the message more profound by likening life to an ocean liner, which should be lived in “day-tight compartments”. By doing so, he preached, one can free themselves from the burden of the past and the future. Dr Osler’s desire to share his way of life is an example of transformational leadership.
I agree with this philosophy for the most part. As Dr Osler says “the load of tomorrow, added to that of yesterday, carried today makes the strongest falter”. Regret about what is past, and worry about what is to come can be very tiresome, and affect one’s quality of life. I am a new student of mindfulness, and this way of life has helped me keep my anxieties in check. I try to channelize my worries into practical problem solving activities. “Problem solving moves us closer to a resolution, whereas worry keeps us spinning in an endless cycle”. (Orsillo & Roemer, 2011, p.25). How does this apply in the work place or leadership? A very strict application of this philosophy is probably not ideal. Reflection is an important part of learning, as is planning for the future.
In my opinion one needs to find a balance between ‘day-tight’ living and constantly living in the past or the future. “To do the day’s work superbly well, planning for the future but not worrying about it, became the guiding principle of his life” (Watson, 1988, p.215). This is a leadership and life lesson I have taken from Dr Osler’s speech- “Get on the bridge, and see that at least the great bulkheads are in working order. Touch a button and hear, at every level of your life, the iron doors shutting out the Past- the dead yesterdays. Touch another and shut off, with a metal curtain, the Future- the unborn tomorrows. Then you are safe, safe for today.” This resonates with my personal philosophy that the mistakes of yesterday are learning experiences, and worries of the future if dealt with realistically help one plan for the future. But constant rumination about either is not an effective way to spend one’s time.
References
Orsillo, S.M., & Roemer, L. (2011). The mindful way through anxiety. New York: The Guildford Press.
Watson, L. E. (1988). Light from many lamps. New York: Simon & Schuster.
William Osler. Wikipedia, extracted o November 12, 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Osler
Unit 8, activity 1
The term ‘Glass ceiling’ was first coined by Hymowitz & Schellhardt (1986), who were Wall Street Journal reporters. The glass ceiling is defined by Wikipedia as “a metaphor used to represent an invisible barrier that keeps a given demographic (typically minorities) from rising beyond a certain level in a hierarchy”. A very famous example of this in recent times is Hillary Clinton not getting elected to the US presidency despite being a very qualified candidate. Eagly & Carli (2007) argue that this term is a misnomer, as it inadequately represents the challenges that a certain demographic might face on their way to the top. They argue the term ceiling implies that the lower positions are more easily accessible, and that there is this “single, invisible, and impassable barrier”. They propose an alternate term- ‘the glass labyrinth’- representing the challenges that women must face at multiple levels, and not just at the top.
The Case Study 15.1 (NOrthouse, 2016) is a classic example of this metaphor. The glass labyrinth model as described by Northouse, citing several authors, gives three types of explanations for this phenomenon (Northouse, 2016, p. 399-406) – difference in investment in human capital, gender differences in men and women, and prejudice. In the case of Lisa the first explanation does not seem to be applicable; from her educational achievements we can assume that she is at par with her colleagues. There is also no mention of family commitments. She does appear to have a different style of leadership from her peers. She appears to be engaging more in a transformative style of leadership, by being available for advice to her peers. She also has trouble with self-promotion as is evidenced by her reluctance to correct her boss’ misconceptions about her competence. She is eager to be seen as a team player. Eagly and Johnson (1990); van Engen & Willemsen (2004), say that ‘women lead in a more democratic, or participative, manner than men’. Lisa is epitomizing this statement. The third explanation of prejudice seems to be very much in play here. For undisclosed reasons her boss seems to be convinced that her male colleagues have more knowledge than her. She is forced to make the decision to quit the firm because she does not see a future for herself in the face of such bias.
In the section ‘Navigating the labyrinth’, Northouse (2016, pp. 406-408), the authors propose some solutions- changing gendered assumptions, encouraging flexibility and diversity in hiring, women starting their own ventures etc. What I found interesting is that there isn’t much discussion about how to tackle work place prejudice. Lisa is stuck working for a boss who is clearly prejudicial. Bosses like everybody else are a product of their upbringing and background; biases and prejudices included. I think everybody who is making decisions about promotions, should have education and training in recognizing their bias. There should also be personality tests to promote awareness among leaders about their often-unrecognized biases. A great example of gender bias was reported by Goldin & Rouse in 2000, where they found that orchestras that auditioned applicants while hidden behind a screen increased the proportion of women applicants being selected. How can this gender blindness be applied to hiring and promotions is a challenge that organizations needs to take up.
Our Unit notes mention that somehow blinding resumes could help reduce the bias. While this would help getting women selected to a position within an organization, this does not ensure they will be given an equal chance at promotion, as was the case with Lisa. Organizations must focus on training and education to ensure that gender discrimination is acknowledged and dealt with, so that women leaders are allowed the same opportunities as their male counterparts.
References
Eagly, A.H., & Carli, L.L., (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Eagly, A.H., & Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership and style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256.
Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review, 90, 715-740.
Hymowitz, C., & Schellhardt, T.D. (1986). The glass ceiling: Why women can’t seem to break the invisible barrier that blocks them from the top jobs. The Wall Street Journal, pp. D1, D4-D5.
Van Engen, M.L., & Willemsen, T.M. (2004). Sex and leadership styles: A meta-analysis of research published in the 1990s. Psychological Reports, 94, 3-18.
Glass Ceiling. (2017, November 12). In Wikipedia. Retrieved November 12, 2017), from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling.
Unit notes. https://create.twu.ca/ldrs500/unit-8/unit-8-notes/.
Recent Comments