The second HERS Leadership training took place this last week, and the topic was the title of this blog post (Managing Up, Down and All Around). I also had my first shadowing days to understand my new role. Because of this shadowing, I now have an idea about some concrete tasks that I will be asked to carry out in this new role, and I feel confident I can handle these tasks (licensure requirement waivers, scheduling, student-at-risk meetings, and some direct supervision and working with staff). I was also introduced to a Project Log so I can track the work I do and how it fits directly into the job description (once that is created). This tracker can be used to note how much of my day-to-day is spent on various portions of the job description or fall into the ambiguous “duties as assigned” category. I think using such a tool will provide data for me to share how my days are spent and will allow me to have conversations about prioritizing tasks.
One of the topics in the HERS leadership training this past week was the importance of always evaluating if and how tasks fit into one’s job description. This is important so lanes are clearly defined, job roles and responsibilities are understood, and the organization’s talents and capacity can be built. We discussed how it is good to help out every now and then in other areas to help the health of an organization but to truly build a strong organization that does not cause people to burn out, checks need to be done regarding one’s role and the tasks they are trying to do. I think the university I work as still trying to clearly define roles and responsibilities and create a shared understanding of the tasks that may come with different roles. We are taking initial steps in operationalizing roles and processes so the larger community understands these. The culture at the university, up until this point, has relied on people and relationships rather than clearly defined duties to accomplish things. From a leadership framing, it has operated more from a human-resource lens rather than a structural lens. Changing this framing is changing culture because people were so used to the way things were/operated, and some have come on board while others have been more resistant. I think because the structural lens has not been utilized before, there is a heavy emphasis on this lens now, but I don’t think it is best to abandon all portions of the human-resource lens. Can a shift be made to keep some of these aspects intact? Can the other leadership lenses (symbolic and political) also be built up simultaneously? I ask this because successful organizations use all four lenses and see the perspectives of each lens as they think about, plan, and execute decisions. The topic of this week’s HERs training was Managing Up, Down and Around, and I think structurally we can manage our time and projects. The human-resource lens, however, needs to be in play as we lead people. After all, as leaders, we manage projects and we lead people—and to do this justly we need to be human and have relationships.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorKristina Scott Archives
February 2023
Categories |