HRD Reflection, Larson, p.

HRD Reflection Paper

Eric M. Larson
HRDO 546
April 23, 2002

My reflections on Human Resource Development are not as an HRD practitioner

per se, nor as one contemplating HRD as a future career. Instead, I have approached

HRD as a field from which I can glean information to build my skills as a manager –

skills which, I hope, will allow me to better support the members of my team.

One of my first revelations, straight from the early pages of Douglas McGregor,

Revisited, was the very terminology I used for those with whom I work. After the

restructuring of my department and my promotion to manager, I would frequently lobby

for or defend “my people”. I felt this was a warm, affectionate term for a team I deeply

appreciate and respect… until I read page 28:

In corporations you often hear take-charge managers refer to the employees in

their company as “My People”. They intend this term to be one of endearment,
one that indicates how close they are, but in most cases they are revealing
something far different. If you were to ask: “When you say my people, does that
mean that you own them?” these same managers would snap back: “No, of
course I don’t.” But there is a critical distinction. These words have power.
Those who think of people as “theirs” tend to consider these possessions as
something to be controlled. And those who talk of being part of a team tend to
also value a more humane culture.

While I would disagree that my motivation was based in a sense of controlling

ownership, I realized that I could not be assured that my motives were totally pure. And,

more importantly, using the term “my people” allowed others around me to cultivate a

notion of “employee possession” that they might carry to their own teams – and would

certainly use in evaluating the functionality of my team (and my “control” of it). From
 HRD Reflection, Larson, p. 2

the day I read McGregor’s statement, I have made a conscious effort to always refer to

“my team”, to reinforce the reality that we all depend upon one another and do not serve

each other hierarchically.

It is nuggets of wisdom like this that have kept me motivated during my study of

HRD because, to be honest, much of McGregor’s writing frustrated and depressed me.

Why on earth would I react negatively to teachings that are so blatantly true and that

serve as a clear beacon for organizations? Because, in my job, I am not steering the ship;

a “beacon of truth” when one is stuck in darkness may be encouraging, but without a

clear path to let one move toward the light, the only purpose it serves is to remind those

in the darkness of how dark their lives truly are. Melodramatic though this metaphor may

sound, I feel it captures my state of mind as I have learned more and more about “proper”

management though McGregor’s eyes. And the only thing that has kept me from

throwing up my hands in despair is the recognition that, in the lives of my teammates, I

can make a difference. I may not be able to single-handedly steer the organization in a

more compassionate or “humane” direction, but I do have the power to steer my team that

way; even if there approach were to have no impact on the organization as a whole (and it

does in important, albeit subtle, ways), we will still have impact in each other’s lives and

the lives of those we serve.

An even greater frustration is the knowledge that, even “if I ran things”, I would

probably make the same decisions that are now being made in the organization. In this

way, parts of McGregor seem a bit naive. Not all “demoralizing” corporate practices are

due to evil managers who refuse to acknowledge the humanity of their employees.

Sometimes, our jobs require work that is not fulfilling. This seems, to me, to be an even
 HRD Reflection, Larson, p. 3

greater problem in the era of downsizing and layoffs; much work that should be

automated or handled by assistants cannot be simply because the organization cannot

afford automation or assistants. My new-found HRD knowledge has opened my eyes to

efficiencies that are practically screaming to be implemented… and if we had $250,000

to spare, we could purchase the systems to implement them and free our employees to do

far more fulfilling work. Unfulfilling though it is, certain “administrative” work (which

has no direct impact on job or career or happiness) must be accomplished; it seems

McGregor would have us eliminate that kind of work, but when that proves impossible,

what remains?

While I have found no magic answers to these challenges, I have worked hard to

bring good HRD philosophy to my team where we can work together at a “micro level”

to improve our jobs. For me, the notion of Appreciative Inquiry was an eye-opener. The

concept of focusing on what is being done well, rather than just focusing on the

problems, is an atrophied skill for technical workers. We structure our lives around

troubleshooting; our jobs are to seek out the problem. I have found that meetings that

focus on one problem after another leave everyone feeling hopeless; meetings that

emphasize the successes in a team and the preservation of whatever led to those successes

can be remarkably encouraging, and serve as a much better foundation for seeking out

flaws in the system.

Of course, the workplace is far more than just “the system”, and I found myself

embracing the concept of “career development” far more than I first thought I would.

Personally, I think that growth and development of human beings is the most important

element of life itself, but I never grasped how development of individuals outside of the
 HRD Reflection, Larson, p. 4

workplace ought to be a concern of the employer. “Development” is certainly a concern

of the human beings in an organization, as they care for other human beings in the

organization, but that I used to see that relationship as one arising out of our nature as

humans, not as members of an organization. This may seem like an insignificant

distinction, but it is actually fairly radical; I cared about my coworkers’ personal lives as

a person, not as a manager. The discussion we had in class about the topic of Career

Development finally brought this into perspective for me and exposed a false dichotomy

between “professional” and “personal” lives. These two aspects of life merge

particularly closely at educational institutions; humans are “learning creatures” (unless

we have the desire to learn and create crushed out of us at an early age) and it is nearly

impossible to separate personal interests from professional ones. After our class

discussion I was able to spot the words, hiding on page 40 of Douglas McGregor,

Revisited, that, “After all, if employees can’t attain their personal goals at work, how can

we expect them to commit to the job?”

This approach to Career Development finally presented the necessary balance that

I had been seeking since the first day of class, when I was able to articulate my

discomfort with the notion of “encouraging your good employees to leave you”. By

viewing a “career” as more than just a chain of jobs in a particular field, “developing” a

career makes much more sense. I see Career Development as more than just

“encouraging our employees”; that is our responsibility as fellow humans, not as

managers; a person who demoralizes and discourages others is not just a bad manager,

but a bad person. Nor is “career development” simply developing employees with the

expectation (or hope) that they stay with the company and do not take their talents
 HRD Reflection, Larson, p. 5

elsewhere. It is difficult to explain, but I now have a sense of “career development” as

developing employees to be the best they can be in whatever their interests are, and

letting nature take its course in bringing that satisfaction and enthusiasm into their jobs.

This “holistic” approach to Career Development makes sense – and has some pragmatic

benefits to the organization as well. Obviously, happy employees are more “productive”

than unhappy ones. And one of the most interesting tidbits I heard was a practical “spin”

to justify career development for us managers, even if it means “losing” your good

employees: such managers get good reputations and good employees will seek them out.

I have already taken a Career Development approach into my team, asking coworkers

what interests them and what they would like to be doing as a “career”, then pointing

them in appropriate directions and trying to align the tasks we need to accomplish with

the varied personal interests and “career directions” in my team.

Overall, I have spent the semester with the wheels in my head turning ‘round and

‘round, as I have pondered how to apply the ideals embodied in McGregor (and others) to

my job and to the lives of those with whom I work. The overarching satisfaction I have

found is in learning that I am not alone; that “managing the human side of the enterprise”

is a challenge not unique to my position, and that others far more experienced and

talented than I have grappled with the same challenges. At times it is a struggle but,

remembering the materials I have encountered in this class, I am working to transform

frustration into inspiration, moving from wishing the organization could be better to

making it better.