Productividad Laboral

I provided a brief overview of the culture of the organisation when I ‘cased the joint’. However, the organisational culture and leadership could also be observed in various contexts, such as meetings or modes of staff gatherings that took place, namely project meetings, operations meetings, staff training and staff meetings. As I was looking specifically for evidence of a learning culture in these settings, different types of learning/learning theories were noted in these settings. Staff perceptions of the organisation’s culture and leadership were collected from questionnaires and interviews.

Project meetings

There were three project teams during the course of my study in 2008. I observed six project meetings of one of the project teams which were held in the boardroom or in a meeting room. In the boardroom, the team sat at the one end of the table, with two members on one side and one member on the other so that they could interact closely and look at each others’ laptops when they needed to. Each team member had a note pad next to their laptop and would scribble notes as they saw fit. The meeting rooms had round tables with four chairs, and team members did not appear to be selective in where they sat. Team members would often get up to stand behind a member who was referring to something on her laptop and they would point on the screen and discuss what was being referred to. I sat slightly away from the team so that I did not form an obvious part of the meeting and so that I could assume the role of observer. In the boardroom, I sat towards the middle of the table while in the meeting rooms I sat away from the table, towards a corner that allowed me a good vantage point.

Figure 6.2: ODC’s boardroom looking towards the screen

Figure 6.3: Meeting room 1 (similar in layout to meeting room 2)

The project at the time was a role-profiling and labour optimisation project and meetings were scheduled by the team on an ad hoc basis. The team consisted of three members, one of whom was the project leader, Tina. The meetings were generally loosely structured. As needs relating to the project were identified, these were addressed. Tina had a collaborative approach to the project meetings and gained input from the team members, Joyce and Charlene, before agreeing on the action to be taken. The team functioned well together and complimented one another when good ideas were shared with statements such as “Nice, that will work” and “Good idea, let’s do that”. The discussions were generally focussed on the task at hand, interjected with personal information or stories, such as what had happened over the weekend, sharing memories of past experiences on different projects, or past experiences of working together.

There seemed to be a culture of support and openness in the team and with Tim, the managing director. On one occasion, the team gave a presentation to Tim before they presented to the client. This session took place in the boardroom with the team gathered around the screen-end of the table, with the document projected from a laptop onto the screen. The team systematically worked through the document and explained to Tim what they had done and their reasons for doing so. Tim encouraged them with phrases such as “Well done”; “I like it”; “Very nice”. At the end of the session Tim congratulated the team on their work and wished them well for their presentation. Joyce, who had been responsible for the final compilation of the document, then said to the team, “Please will you pick through the document, check the wording and make any changes you see fit”, which I interpreted as her demonstrating openness to having her work criticized and changed.

Tina also displayed behaviours that helped to create a learning culture within the team environment. The team could raise suggestions or questions freely. In one of the meetings, Charlene noticed an aspect on a document and readily offered: “Guys, isn’t this role wording across the board for all roles?” This led to a discussion between the team members where they clarified their understanding of the task in the context of their client:

Tina: I don’t know. Is it?

Joyce: Let’s just have a look at the wording on the other profiles. What do they say?

Charlene: Yes, look here… (Charlene read an extract of the role-profile wording for three profiles).

Tina: Yes, you’re right – the responsibility is very similar.

Charlene: Shouldn’t we just standardise the wording then – get a phrase that can be used throughout the roles that have a similar responsibility and include it in the template?

Tina: Before we do, let’s just think about the roles in the context of the client. How many roles include this responsibility and is it the same across the board or are there slight variations?

Joyce: I think they’re quite similar – if you look at these two roles (Joyce referred to two specific roles) the wording doesn’t need to change much – they are basically doing the same thing in different roles.

Charlene: I agree. It’s very similar.

Tina: Yes, you’re right. Let’s check how many roles do include this responsibility and then we can agree on how to word the phrase so that it becomes a standard. Well-spotted, Charlene. This will help to simplify our task and make the wording more understandable for the client.

After this discussion, the team looked at the role-profiles to identify similar responsibilities so that they could standardise the wording of the roles. It was evident that they were learning through this process.

The learning that occurred during this team interaction demonstrated aspects of critical reflection where the team members questioned a situation, or information, rather than accepted it at face value (Brookfield, 2000; Mezirow, in Mezirow & Associates, 1990). This team interaction, as well as others, also indicated that collaborative learning took place where the team would engage in discussions with the intent and outcome of arriving at shared understanding (Roschelle & Teasley, in Dillenbourg, 1999). Cultural-historical activity theory

(CHAT) was evident in that learning that took place in the team was mediated through artefacts and cultural means (the role-profiling template and the language of the industry) by participating in the common activity of drafting role-profiles in the team (Fenwick, 2010a;

Miettinen, 1999; Miettinen, 2001). This learning could not have taken place without the influence of the leader.

Tina demonstrated that she was a “learning leader” in this and other project team meetings, that is a leader that demonstrates a willingness and openness to learn (Senge, 1990, p359) – she would question suggestions to encourage discussion; promote conversations about the project and proposed solutions; include all team members in designing solutions; remain quiet and allow the team to talk; and encourage the team in the contributions they made and work well done.

Operations meetings

I observed one operations meeting during the course of the study. The meeting took place between Tim, the managing/operations director of ODC and a project leader, Tina, in Tim’s office. Tim sat behind his desk while Tina sat opposite him on the other side of the desk. I sat on the couch in the office where I could observe the meeting and listen to discussions.

The meeting was based on information captured in a spreadsheet, drafted by Tim, with topics to be dealt with. He and Tina both had a copy of the spreadsheet and worked through these topics.

The discussion around a topic would come to a natural close when all relevant information had been shared, and Tim would prompt the next topic by stating, “Okay, what’s next?” The discussion took the format of Tim asking questions, Tina answering these and then Tim asking more questions or offering suggestions.

Tim displayed leadership characteristics that allowed learning to take place in the meeting. For example, he suggested a way forward for Tina to free her time so that she could gain a stronger project focus. This suggestion displayed his recognition of her personal mastery. Tim also listened to Tina share her ideas on how to deal with the projects she was working on and offered suggestions if needed. He did not impose his suggestions but led and guided her by asking

“How are you going to deal with this one?” Tim reinforced Tina’s suggestions, and made further suggestions if he felt it necessary. With regard to learning, aspects of critical reflection could be seen in this interaction – Tim acted as a ‘critical friend’ (Brookfield, 2000; Sagor &

Barnett, 1994) to Tina by asking Tina questions to encourage her to reflect critically.

This meeting also reflected a focus on quality and the profitability of the company. Tim and Tina had a discussion about one team member who was not delivering the quality of information that the client expected. The conversation between Tim and Tina went as follows:

Tina: The client is an A-type personality who is analytical and picks up on errors and quality.

Tim: This shouldn’t be happening; she is no longer an intern so there shouldn’t be these mistakes.

Tina: I’m not sure what it is – her energy levels are down and I’m not sure how to get them up.

Tim: Okay. Then think about it and let me know if I need to address her attitude or if you think she needs training or a warning letter. Perhaps we can allocate someone else to your team for the next phase of the project and move her onto another project? But think about it and let me know what you think we should do.

The meeting progressed according to the items on the spreadsheet and ended off with a discussion of potential business – leads to contact and appointments that were scheduled, after which Tina’s project targets were reviewed in monetary terms – how much business she had brought in and whether she was on track to reach her target. She was.

“Wow!” I thought. “It’s quite a responsibility to be a project leader in ODC. Not only are you responsible for project deliverables and quality, but also for attaining a target for business.” It seemed that project leaders had to be continually on the look out for new opportunities for business and assist in converting these opportunities into more business. Although I initially thought it was a demanding expectation, this approach made sense – who else to look for and convert possibilities than the team working with the client, whom the client has learnt to trust and has developed a relationship with? Staff were compensated in the form of commission for any business they brought in.

Staff training

I observed and participated in one training session during the course of the study, which took place in the boardroom. The training session was for the purpose of external consultants who had been contracted to work on a project for ODC. The group consisted of six participants, who took up seating on either side of the table, towards the end of the table away from the screen.

The training was led by Angela (a manager) who stood and presented from the screen-end of the

boardroom. She made use of slides projected onto the boardroom screen and participants were given handouts of these and additional notes on ODC’s methodology.

The theme of the training was how to draft a role-profile according to ODC’s methodology. The training was well-structured, covered theoretical aspects of role profiling and ODC’s methodology and included a practical session where participants had to draft their own role-profile, based on the methodology they had just learnt. The consultants shared their profiles with the group and Angela reinforced aspects relating to ODC’s methodology. There was an opportunity for participants to ask questions and clarify understanding. This approach reflected experiential learning as well as a consideration of the learning theories of Cognitivism and Constructivism.

The facilitation style was participative and inclusive – participants felt comfortable to ask questions at any stage during the training to clarify their understanding. I thought that this style demonstrated that Angela was a ‘learning leader’. Participants were also given opportunities to share learning from their personal experience and this appeared to make the learning meaningful to the participants. Angela supported a community of practice, recognising that participants were practitioners in a community (Wenger & Snyder, 2000).

Comments that participants made included:

“I have done role-profiling in the past, but this way just makes so much sense.”

“Putting profiling in the context of ODC’s methodology just helps to put it into context of the bigger picture of the client’s business”.

“The format, layout, method of doing profiles is really good. I can see how this works so well.”

I also drafted my role-profile in that session and received feedback on my efforts, so I had the opportunity to be more of a participant than observer in this instance, which allowed me to immerse myself in the organisation, even if for a short while. As this was a new skill I was practising amongst a group of seasoned practitioners, I felt a bit intimidated and overwhelmed.

However, Angela, an old-timer and master of the skill, was patient and helpful and guided me, a newcomer to the community of role-profilers, through the steps of the task.

Staff meetings

I observed four staff meetings during the course of the study, all of which took place in the boardroom. The first meeting I observed was in July 2008 and the fourth in November 2008.

The staff seemed to occupy any available seat – there did not appear to be a trend where staff

would routinely sit in the same seat in every meeting, except for the directors/managers. The directors/managers sat on the side of the boardroom with a screen with Patricia on one side of the table, towards the head of the table, Tim opposite her and Tracey next to him.

The meetings were based on an agenda that the directors drafted, and that staff were requested to contribute to. The meetings were chaired by Patricia and slides projected onto the screen were used to guide the agenda of the meetings. All members remained seated during the meeting, except when knowledge sharing sessions were conducted, when the members who were presenting tended to stand.

The first formal ODC staff meeting of that year took place on 11 July 2008. Patricia, chaired the meeting and shared the purpose of the meetings: “To share information and overcome the isolation that some people were working in; to share knowledge and get in touch with each other and also to be trained on the business”. Patricia then asked everyone to “check-in” to the room by sharing what kind of space they were in. Each person shared both business and personal information and the general feeling was that all were “in a good space”. This check-in became standard practice in the staff meetings that followed. In chairing the meetings, Patricia would generally introduce topics on the agenda and give a broad overview of the related information. Tim would then add to her information with Tracey occasionally contributing more information. The passing on of information was mostly done by Patricia and Tim in these meetings.

After the check-in, the leaders (Tim, Tracey and Patricia), with Tim leading the discussion, explained that the new focus of the business would be on mining only and that they would no longer actively pursue business in the government and private/commercial sectors. The decision was based on the historic experience of the business and ODC’s main source of income. The meeting proceeded to address staff and operational issues such as the need for project plans and timesheets, the performance bonus scheme and information sharing by one of the directors concerning tax and the South African Revenue Service. During the meeting, staff were regularly asked for their feedback and input. The meeting closed on a positive note with a new staff member, Rose, who had recently joined the company after being at a large mining house, commenting: “This meeting was nice – I like that the company wants to reimburse staff for their efforts and that staff are given a chance to express themselves. You can feel that you’re not just a number here but a person”.

Lunch was served in the open office area where staff mingled and shared stories of their experiences with clients and their projects. Some stood while others sat on the couches and the arms of the couches in this area.

The second staff meeting took place on 22 August 2008. The meeting commenced with a check-in where staff shared “how thcheck-ings were gocheck-ing”. There was generally a positive atmosphere, with staff joking and jovial. The meeting addressed operational and staff issues, such as upcoming conference dates that ODC was to participate in; and a branding exercise that was taking place with a request made to staff to participate in focus groups and interviews. Tracey discussed the financial position of the company at that point, which was positive, having exceeded their annual target by 27%. The meeting became quite sombre at a point when Tim addressed issues related to office neatness and security, and took a ‘hard-line’ approach on these issues (“Come on, now. I don’t want to have to speak about these things again,” he said in a stern voice). The meeting then addressed issues such as timesheets; printing, with an appeal to save paper; and a discussion on restraint of trade documentation, with Tracey explaining from the company’s perspective the need for this restraint in order to prevent plagiarism of the company’s products and services if staff should leave the company. She added that “As the company grows and we see a higher staff turnover, which accompanies growth, we are more at risk of our products and services being plagiarised”. Thereafter, staff requested a permanent group work room fitted with projector and screen - a ‘mini-boardroom’ (refer to Figure 6.1, p163). This suggestion was agreed to by all and Tim said the suggestion would be implemented. Before proceeding into the knowledge sharing/information sharing part of the meeting, Tim thanked the staff for their contribution and efforts, stating that the company was doing well. I had observed the leaders take on the role of steward (Senge, 1990), taking care of the company with regard to office neatness and the protection of its products and services.

The knowledge sharing session consisted of two presentations, one done by an intern, Lee-Anne, who enthusiastically presented her learning from the project she had been working on and the other by Gertrude on MS Projects. Lee-Anne dressed up in PPE (Personal Protective Equipment - protective/safety gear, consisting of an overall, safety boots, earplugs and hard hat) and gave a slide presentation with much animation and passion while she stood at the screen-end of the boardroom. The second session was an overview of Microsoft (MS) Project

The knowledge sharing session consisted of two presentations, one done by an intern, Lee-Anne, who enthusiastically presented her learning from the project she had been working on and the other by Gertrude on MS Projects. Lee-Anne dressed up in PPE (Personal Protective Equipment - protective/safety gear, consisting of an overall, safety boots, earplugs and hard hat) and gave a slide presentation with much animation and passion while she stood at the screen-end of the boardroom. The second session was an overview of Microsoft (MS) Project