I chose to look at the transformational process of change for my research paper and found it timely and critical for the success of the SNAP-Ed team.   Maybe I need to take a step back and look at myself as well as the bigger organization and its impact on the changes we are and will endure.   I found the idea of which category I primarily fall into interesting and something worth spending more time and energy reflecting on (King, 2014).  As Dr. King stated in his PowerPoint video this week, the majority of the population or employees fall into the Pragmatists area.  Initially, in doing the readings and listening to the information, that is where I saw myself as well.  Then I drew the continuum line and tried to envision which pole I would lean closer to.  The more I worked on this the more I saw myself as an Originator in many instances and situations, but it is as so many items I review, very contextual.   It is also fun to try to figure out where the SNAP-Ed team I work with plot out on this continuum too (King, 2014).

In trying to place myself on this line, I started to reflect on and remember examples where I would be more in the Pragmatist or Originator camp.  One example that came to mind was the movement of SNAP-Ed into piloting and working with youth during the school year as opposed to only the summer food program.  This move came about when our new Community Leader had been with the organization for a short time and had been discussing the needed and eventual move to youth audiences in the future.    I knew that a few Program Assistants were really excited and eager for the move to the new audience and I also knew that their level and number of classes were not meeting standards (number of classes per week needing to be taught based on FTE).  During one of our conference calls our SNAP-Ed team had in February or early March, that was scantly attended, two of what Dr. King identified as the naysayers were not on the call.   I broached the subject of allowing a few of the program assistants with the will and desire be allowed to approach the schools to pilot a few programs before the school year ended.   It was a more radical approach, moving fast for our program, and challenged the engrained structure. 

The move was risky and uncertain and once those couple of members on the team who were not on the call returned, things became rather rocky for a brief period.  I moved as soon as I got the go ahead and had several Program Assistants talking to schools and starting to make plans.  The couple of people on the team who had missed the phone conversation (the naysayers) started immediately questioning the appropriateness of this.  Were we prepared to do this?  Were we moving too fast? What about the IRB – Institutional Review Board?  Our policies and procedures only allowed us to work with adults.  Some of the traits of the Originators really fit this situation perfectly.  Others felt I had little regard for policies and procedures that were in place for many years.  Although the Community Nutrition Leader was planning to change the target audience this was all to happen later when we could take our time and inch it into place.  Slowly and methodically was the normal pattern in the past (King, 2014).

Upon closer examination, it was discovered that no IRB was needed for any of our programming because our data and results were reported to funders only and not shared in research articles.  This resulted in many happy program assistants who no longer have to read a script and follow the more rigid procedures in collection of evaluations.  This was one nice side effect of this pilot.  Our program is now fully integrated into the youth audiences and although we still have those who fall on the resistance or even anger side of change, most have really embraced the change and believe it is energizing the program.  One program assistant went so far as telling me it has renewed her love of the position!  This moving ahead in times of change allowed those who piloted the youth audiences to share at our in-service in the late summer as the idea went state wide.  It was a step to allow others to feel a little less nervous about the change.  They could see the possibilities and ask questions of those who had done it.  From a risky move into a change that was to eventually happen, more good came than not I believe.  Would I have moved as fast if I had it to do again?  Would I have waited to get permission from the remainder of the team?  Would the program assistants have been as empowered and excited to be the first to pilot the idea?

So where do I personally fit on the continuum?  I believe I still am mostly a Pragmatist with an Originator in several contexts.  This is especially true when working with the Community Nutrition Leader, who I classify as an Originator with a hint of Pragmatist too.

King, J. (2014).  Leading in Times of Change, Video PPT.

 King, J. (2014). Leading  Change, Supplement for AEE 8420, Spring, 2014.

The forced distribution ranking as explained in Chapter 16 and in Dr. King’s PowerPoint (2014) was attempted by OSU Extension last year for performance rankings of the SNAP-Ed program assistants.  Although I witnessed struggles and issues with this process in Extension, I did not see this as completely negative for SNAP-Ed, but rather a wakeup call for us to do a better job at communicating.  We in SNAP-Ed need to make our standards and expectations for the performance of the program assistants well known to not only those in SNAP-Ed, but FCS Educators and County Extension Directors as well.   This really made it obvious to me that we needed to do a better job of having something standard so that it would be easier to compare performance against performance and person against person.  Although the forced ranking did not work more for the reason as explained in the Chapter 16 page 299—with small numbers the idea of the bell-shaped ranking does not work very well.  We worked in EERAs and with such small numbers of SNAP-Ed PAs in those EERAs often only one or two could be placed at the top with many more at the lowest level.  I felt like morale could be damaged in this ranking.  I really witnessed this as a problem with the ranking of office assistants and associates.  The literature notes that often this can be more difficult, dependent on the job duties.  With the SNAP-Ed positions we have clear expectations, and even though we have and are making changes to those, this did make it much clearer to me that we needed to communicate and share those expectations Extension wide.

I like how Dr. King (2014) explained that calibration is not the forced-distribution (page 299 Chapter 16), but rather a way to compare and evaluate performance against a standard and against others doing similar positions.  This is how the process is being done this year.  I will be involved with 3 EERA calibration days next week.  We have distributed the program assistant performance standards and I think this year should go very smoothly.  I do like the idea of bringing all the CEDs together to help them get a better picture of how their county’s program is stacking up.  As our program grows and has become competitive it is no longer enough to say we are doing programs, we need to be delivering high quality programming that makes a difference.   

According to my job description, I have no supervisory expectations.  I do not do any performance reviews in my current role, although the amount of involvement with each county’s program assistant really varies.  In some counties where there is a strong Family and Consumer Sciences Educator working with the program assistant, I may have little or no input into the evaluation.  In other counties where the FCS Educator is not as involved with SNAP-Ed or where there is no FCS Educator, which in my Region is 11 of the 21 counties, I may be asked by the County Director to write the performance review or give input into the performance.  I attend all the performance review calibration days and am asked for input in all the EERAs.  Depending on the CED’s knowledge of the program and program assistant’s work, the review of that assistant may really differ.  There are CEDs that include the PA in advisory committee meetings and office conferences and others that do not.  There are CEDs that observe the PAs teach and others that are unfamiliar with what the PAs teach.  Is this different way of evaluating county by county really the best? Is this in the best interest of the Program Assistants I work with?

My role and where I feel that I need to take on more responsibility is in the standards of quality of the programming that the PAs implement, especially those without the support or guidance of the Family and Consumer Sciences Educator.  I make it my priority to help the Program Assistants meet the performance standards that we have created.  I feel responsible when the number of programs that should be delivered are not being delivered in the counties.  How can I guide the program assistants that are not meeting that standard to reach those standards?   When I go county and county, do the program assistants feel like they can be candid and honest asking me open ended questions and having a two way conversation on how to better reach those expectations?   (OSU performance management- performance review)

The quote from Nicholson “The manager needs to look at the employee not as a problem to be solved, but as a person to be understood” is a great statement and one I reflected on as I read and wrote this week.  What can I do to understand as much and as many details as possible about each of my counties’ program assistants?  How can I support the program assistants in each of their unique counties with each of their unique needs to be successful?  The challenge for me is of the 21 counties SNAP-Ed is present in the NE Region; no two have exactly the same scenario.  All come from unique and diverse situations.  With the growth we are anticipating we are discussing the idea of performance standards in more depth recently. How can we assure the current program assistants will be good role models and are following the standards for our newly hired program assistants to emulate? 

The idea that coaching and performance review can help identify how the employee can be a more effective contributor and how the manager can support the employee is really important to me.   Am I doing all I can to support the educators and program assistants alike?    Do I go in with a curious mind and listening ears?  Are the conversations always two way conversations and great opportunities to learn about hopes and dreams? (OSU Performance Reviews)  Am I focused on the future, not the past?

The importance of setting employees up for success is so very important.   I think to set standards but not help people find strategies to achieve them, reflects poorly on my performance.  We have a standard of number of classes program assistants need to teach weekly based on their FTE.   We are now sharing quarterly updates on performance.  Number of classes taught, number of classes in a series versus single lesson, target audience composition – youth versus seniors, for example.  I look at those numbers as a way to work on my performance.  I need to offer the program assistants resources and suggestions for them to generate some ideas of how to make that happen in their county.  I feel this is especially important where the program assistant does not have the support of an FCS Educator to work with them on finding and securing partnerships and collaborations.  Are we making a difference in helping those people in the Low Socio-economic status lead a healthier life on a limited budget?  

 Resources

King, J. (2014). Performance Management, Video PPT.

 OSU Performance Management Policy 5.25. (2011) retrieved from:  https://hr.osu.edu/public/documents/policy/policy525.pdf

 Supervision Chapter 16- Appraising and rewarding Performance

I have really never had a position where I have “supervisory” or influence on others’ performance to the degree that I currently do in this position.  I really was uncertain about this position when it was first proposed to me.  What did I know about how to help others succeed?  What if someone else wasn’t interested in really doing the job, only drawing a paycheck?   I come from a family with a strong work ethic and drive, and married into a family with a very similar work ethic and drive. What if others I work with do not share similar interest and drive to do those tasks in their positions that I do? 

Utilizing the GROW method has helped me develop a stronger procedure and way of coaching and interacting with those I work.  Our system, in OSU Extension, is very unique. Some program assistants have strong Family and Consumer Science Educators in their counties who assist the program assistant in developing partnerships and creating a strong plan of work for the grant year, others have no FCS Educator or one who because of the past couple years of funding and no compensation for their time, have elected to not be as involved with the program assistant.  I struggle with how much time and coaching each county’s program assistant needs.  Each is so unique and has such different needs.  Some really need to sit and go agency by agency and class by class and talk out how they plan to program and work with each, while others are very independent and I can count on them to come to me when they get stuck.  How can I get all the program assistants to feel comfortable calling, emailing or texting me when they are stuck or just need someone to vent to or brag about something that went great?

As discussed in the Dawley, Andrews and Bucklew (2007) the ideas of participation in decision making and autonomy are included in the organizational practices that research has shown to more tightly bind an employee to an employer.  Do I give the program assistants enough flexibility and autonomy or do I coddle and hover too much when grant time and partner development occurs?  Due to the fact that we have no FCS Educators in so many counties I have the responsibility of writing those county grants (usually around 10 grants).   Do I include the program assistants in the process enough or do I simply write and develop their county grant myself to “get this task done” or meet the deadline?

Have the coaching relationships, with those counties without educators, grown and shown development through the process of writing the grant and observation of their programming and teaching?  As stated by Clutterbuck (2008) those relationships that deliver value or perceived value to the coachee should deliver a broader sense of purpose or more of a relationship then simply a short term task.  How do I gauge the amount of responsibility for the grant I delegate to each county’s program assistant?  Using the grow method of coaching could benefit me greatly in this task as well.  I need to look at each unique county and program assistant and determine the reality of the goal for that unique individual.  Do I underestimate the amount of content they are comfortable writing?  Do I assume that they are unable, when in fact, if I would delegate I would be pleasantly surprised by the amount of the process they could comfortably complete?  Are their obstacles blocking their ability to write this grant for their county?  Are there options such as them writing a draft and forwarding it to me for feedback and input prior to preceding something I should consider?  Can I see a way to accomplish this task with less stress and strain on me?  This would be a huge step toward the program assistant better buying into their county plan as well as the understanding of their county needs and budget.   Is their potential for grant writing greater than what I envision?  Could their performance be enhanced by including them in the grant writing process to a greater degree?   With grant writing time right around the corner the idea of trying this out without causing undue stress and workload on others will be gingerly attempted in a few counties to see how this may benefit all!

Clutterbuck, D,. (2008).What’s happening in coaching and mentoring? And what is the difference between them? Development and Learning in Organizations. 22 (4).

Dawley, D., Andrews, M., & Bucklew, N., (2007). Mentoring, supervisor support, and perceived organizational support: what matters most? Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 29 (3).

King, J. (2014). Mentoring and Coaching, Video PPT.

Whitmore, J. (2009). Coaching for performance. Boston: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Wilkipedia. GROW model retrieved on May 8, 2011. http://en.wilkipedia.org/wiki/GROW model.