​I did not get the chance to write or draw much this month because of the gong show that is the start of the academic term (in the times of COVID-19 - a very different year for everyone involved). But this post is not about disruptions. Today is a day where I celebrate the accomplishments in my work in user experience design over the past year. My title does not have the term "User Experience Designer" in it but it turns out that the need for good design creeps up in various places.

When I first started my role as a program advisor/administrator in university, I was flooded with inquiries from students in the program regarding degree requirements and course registration. It is understandable since the program has complex degree requirements (there are five degrees offered through two Faculties / four Departments so the requirements for each degree are unique, and there are many requirements to fulfill), but I was forced to think about how to improve my students' degree navigation experience: if everyone is asking me the same question, something must be unclear...

It dawned on me that the questions kept coming to me because the information was not easily accessible. So I decided to make the information more accessible by doing two things:

• The program's website had a FAQ page but it did not contain the frequently asked questions. So I started to add the frequently asked questions onto that page. (Now I feel like there are too many Q&A's in there!)
• I started holding orientations for students newly admitted into the program twice a year, as it was the perfect opportunity for me to do: one-to-many advising. There, I can communicate the pitfalls (e.g. what can prevent someone from graduating, what can prevent someone from registering for courses) early so that they can be avoided.

Over the past year, the number of emails arriving in my inbox that have to do with degree requirements and course selection decreased by 40% (that's... pretty darn close to HALF). An added bonus: a larger proportion of the questions I receive tend to be the questions that need to be directed to me (i.e. the best kinds of questions). Although there are more things I can do to further improve the degree navigation experience for students, at this moment however, I think I'll bask in this favorable outcome.

When a role "is not properly defined, documented, or controlled," role creep is bound to happen.

One example is the role of supervisor or manager. In some unfortunate cases, some supervisors role creep / micromanage due to the fear of "letting go" of the responsibilities that should be handled by their direct reports. Have you experienced your manager stepping on your toes all the time? The failure to delegate is something that I have struggled to tackle, and I have not found a solution for it (it probably needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis anyways).

If you join an organization that is attempting to expand rapidly, your role will likely experience role creep. You'll probably be asked to wear say 3 hats at the time of hire, but when an organization is forced to "do more with less," one day you'll notice that you have 20 hats instead of the original 3. Some people find this enjoyable but others will find this exhausting.

When the organization is large and stable, role creep may be the key to get you a raise or to get you promoted. If you voluntarily wear more hats and prove to the employer that you can take more things on (or new things on), that may open doors for future opportunities. Let me tell you my relationship with role creep: Whenever I wanted to wear a new hat and my supervisor said "no" to it because it was out of my "scope"... that hat was - consistently - the hat I ended up wearing in my next job. So if you're faced with a situation where you want to wear a hat but get shut down, it may still be worth doing research around that hat (even if you can't wear it immediately). You never know when you'll get a chance to wear it. It could be right around the corner...

I failed to write for the last few Saturdays because I had underestimated how much effort it takes to adjust to a new job (^__^;) Now that it has been over 1 month since I started, I can say that I have mostly adjusted.

One of the things I've been (re-)adjusting to is the speed in which things happen, and I am astounded by how different the pace of life is in an academic setting vs. a small not-for-profit-scaling-up setting.

In academia (especially in large institutions), things happen very slowly - some things happen over the course of weeks, other things take years. When I used to work in academia (2 jobs ago, as someone who had been running and managing visual analytics workshops) I found this process painful, but there were some things about that slowness that I now appreciate being back in academia:

1. Predictability - since school runs in terms, the behavior of the system is very predictable (e.g. when students are figuring out their courses, when students have exams, when professors and TA's are busy marking).
2. Timelines - there are dates in school when things happen / when things need to be done by (e.g. when each term starts, when the course add/drop deadline is, when rooms for courses need to be booked, when are course evaluations due), and that information is available way in advance). Since events are predictable because timelines exist, this allows me to plan when to do what so that I don't have a ton of things on my plate at the same time.
3. Cyclic schedule - fall term, spring term, summer term, then fall term comes again. This gives me the chance to optimize systems and processes through iteration.

In the small-not-for-profit-scaling-up setting, the nature of work was far more chaotic than what I expected:

1. Some aspects of running a charity are predictable, like how tax receipts need to be issued by tax season of the following year. But to me, that was one of the very few things that were predictable. There were numerous occasions where I come to work and a new project is on my plate (and since that project has to do with the organization's expansion, it's usually a big one).
2. Timelines exist but are rarely followed because there's so many projects going on simultaneously. When everything (both existing projects and new initiatives) is a priority, it quickly becomes impossible to prioritize and plan ahead. Reality hits - you can't do everything at once. You do one thing, and the other thing falls behind even if you don't want it to.
3. When a small not-for-profit scales up, what you do is mostly expansion projects (and trying to figure out how to maintain everything else when your time is mostly spent on expansion), it's very difficult to find time to iterate and improve on existing processes.

I am definitely a tortoise when it comes to pace of work. I found myself more comfortable and less anxious when there's a stable timeline that recurs so that I can refine systems for the next iteration. I know friends who would get bored out of their minds if they were in the same situation (GOTTA GO FAST)! What pace of work do you prefer?

(Before I go into the topic of micromanagement, I will clarify that when I say "micromanagement" I'm not referring to the ​S1 or "Directing" leadership style. I'm referring to the S0 or "Controlling" style.)

Over the years I have learned to get skeptical when I hear people say something along the lines of "I hate micromanagement so I don't do it" because chances are:

1. They have micromanaged before
2. They might actually be micromanaging as they speak
3. Or if they're not, they're making other people micromanage for them (so they're not doing "first-order" micromanagement but they're doing "second-order" micromanagement)

I openly admit that I have micromanaged before. This stemmed from a hiring mistake that I had made back when I was managing the vision science lab in university. I was responsible for bringing some directed studies students on board to help me with my project. I brought in two students. One was the right fit for the lab, and the other wasn't.

The lab I worked in pretty much "ran itself" by motivated self-starters who are genuinely curious and eager to learn about how visual perception works. One of the students I brought in had said he was interested in vision science but I failed to see the truth: he really wasn't that interested. (The other student I brought in was beaming with interest. This was when I learned how important body language was in the context of interviews.)

So for the next 3 months, I had two very different management experiences. For the genuinely interested student, it was like putting a rock on a hill and it just rolls on its own; stuff gets done! For the other student it was the opposite - it was like pushing a rock uphill, or pushing a really heavy object on a surface that has a lot of friction. The moment I stop pushing, everything stops. So I kept intervening. It wasn't a good experience for me, and I'm sure it wasn't a good experience for that student either.

To me, micromanagement was a symptom of being bad at hiring. So now when I hear someone go "I hate micromanagement, it is the worst!" it gets me thinking - were you micromanaged? Were you micromanaging? Did it feel like you had to? Was it a result of a hiring mistake? How did it happen? Feel free to share micromanagement experiences in the comments (if you feel comfortable enough that is).

I'm running into this phrase lately in the business context (which I will mention that it's used out of its original context - from the Googling that I did, I found that it was originally spoken by Eldridge Cleaver, an American writer and political activist: "There is no more neutrality in the world. You either have to be part of the solution, or you’re going to be part of the problem"). At first I was like "wow yeah totally" but it is starting to bother me. I realized that this is potentially a dangerous way of thinking because it oversimplifies things that shouldn’t be.

Here’s an example:

Meet Adrian. He likes to plan everything way in advance because he gets anxious when the deadline is even remotely close.

Meet Breanne. She thrives and performs better under pressure, so she prefers to start things when they’re closer to the deadline.

Meet the team. Most of the team members think like Adrian. Breanne is the oddball in the team.

Breanne is tasked with running a large company event, which involves doing a lot of arrangements with different venues and vendors. Breanne thinks that it’s ok to start planning 2 weeks before the event; that’s more than enough time. But the rest of the team doesn’t. They’re getting anxious because nothing has gotten off the ground a month before the event. So the team’s eyes naturally drift towards Adrian, who gives into the pressure and starts planning.

Here’s the question: is Adrian part of the solution or the problem?

Which solution? Which problem? It depends on what we’re talking about. Breanne’s thought that planning 2 weeks ahead may have been too short. Adrian may have increased the odds that the event will run well. But what should’ve been Breanne’s task is now on Adrian’s plate. Breanne is bored while Adrian is overwhelmed.

What do we prioritize? Short-term success of the event or the long-term health of the team? What risks are the team willing to take? Were the tasks not assigned correctly in the first place? What role would Breanne thrive best in?

​I don’t have answers; only more questions. But I think these are questions that managers should be thinking about – not only whether someone is part of the solution or the problem. The world isn’t as binary as we may want to think it is.

In the past 7 years I have seen countless cases on delegation done wrong - to be more exact, delegation done in the wrong context. What do I mean by context? Have a look at the following diagram (the Situational Leadership II Model is developed by the Ken Blanchard Companies):

Allow me to briefly explain what this model is about. Let me start with the D's on the bottom. D stands for development - it's the levels of confidence and competence of the learner. I'm blanking out of the exact names of each level since it has been a while since I last read the book, but here are the nuances:

• D1 = "Bring it on!" Competence is low (the enthusiastic learner hasn't gained experience yet) but confidence is high (the enthusiastic learner is eager to learn).
• D2 = "I suck at this..." Competence is getting a bit higher but confidence is low at this stage, because this is when the learner makes mistakes (and learns from them).
• D3 = "I think I got a hang of this...?" Competence is actually high at this point but confidence is still low. The learner is gaining experience but still needs moral support.
• D4 = "I got this." This is the point where mastery is reached - both competence and confidence levels are high.

This is what I call the context - it's what the people who are being managed/led are experiencing. ​​At this point you may have already sensed what I mean by "delegation done in the wrong context," but allow me to walk you through the four context-appropriate leadership styles. The S's stand for style.

• S1 = Directing. The manager/leader teaches the learner. At this stage, the interaction is hands-on because the learner needs a lot of guidance.
• S2 = Coaching. Since this is the point where the learner feels like he/she sucks, this is where the leader supports the learner - offering guidance and also making sure that the learner's confidence doesn't whither away.
• S3 = Supporting. At this point, the leader steps down from actually leading and takes a support role, as the learner can pretty much do the task on his/her own but needs that moral support to feel comfortable. Personally, I think this stage is the most difficult to do as a leader because it involves stepping back.
• S4 = Delegating. The learner is self-reliant, and the leader rarely intervenes.

​In the encounters with managers and leaders I had so far (disclaimer: my sample size is not that big, so what I am observing may be a statistical fluke), I have rarely seen people do S2 (Coaching) or S3 (Supporting). I've seen many behave in the extremes - S1 (Directing) or S4 (Delegating) - or even worse...

1. I call it "S-ZERO" or "controlling", the behavior that some unfortunate leaders exert when the learner goes from D1 to D2. When the learner doesn't get something right (because they're still learning and are in D2), the manager/leader thinks "Oh, I knew I should've done this myself," and either micromanages the learner or even takes the task away from the learner, and thus preventing further development.
2. I call the other extreme "S-WHAT?" or "pushing work onto others with minimal (or no) requirements," i.e. delegation done wrong. This behavior takes place when the leader doesn't take into consideration that the learner is not in D4. When the learner is in D1 or D2 and does it the wrong way, it is usually followed by hysteria and regression to S-ZERO.​

To me, these look like symptoms of a lack of theory of mind - either because the leader is completely clueless about what the learners are experiencing, or because the leader is not putting in the time and effort to think about what the learners are experiencing for some reason.

So I part with these questions (that I don't have the answers to... I'm still learning. I need your intel.):

• Why would a leader lack a theory of mind? How do they become leaders?
• If the leader actually has a theory of mind but doesn't have time (or doesn't make time) to apply it for his/her reports, why is that? How can the leader make time?
• If the leader actually had theory of mind and knew what the learners were experiencing... what motivates the leader to do S-ZERO and S-WHAT?

Earlier this year, I sung the Ein deutsches Requiem by Brahms. I invite you to take a moment to listen to one of my favorite movements from that piece:

My favorite moment in this piece is from 2:42 where the trombones start to pick up all the way to the triumphant "Hölle, wo ist dein Sieg?" ("Hell, where is thy victory?") at 5:41. At this time, it transitions to the next section with the altos starting the fugue with a warm and bold "Herr".

I'm an alto so I was one of the singers who started off with "Herr". During rehearsals, I remember being somewhat sheepish to start it. But during one rehearsal, my choral director made us sing that note by ourselves. Meaning, my director pointed at the first alto in the front row, then the second, then the third... and we sung that note one by one. Everyone else is silent. Your voice is heard by over 100 (!) other singers - quite vulnerable and humbling! After a good chunk of us sung that note one by one, the director told us to sing exactly the way we did when we sung one by one, except to sing at the same time.

And that was when music happened.

I was thinking about that magical moment when the sound coming out of the alto section was not just a mere note - it was music. My working hypothesis is that since all of us were held accountable for that note, one by one, and as a result we each took ownership of that note. Each one of us made a conscious choice to own it.

At that point I realized that this phenomenon doesn't occur only in choirs or orchestras. It occurs in any organization where people accomplish something together - when each individual chooses to takes ownership of their role, that's when the magic happens.

That rehearsal - that "Herr" - proved to be an important lesson for my management career but also for my life in general. More on that next week.

I also write with the intent to reach out to individuals who have suffocated their own inner flame by internalizing problems caused by bad management:
“Maybe I was just being too much of an idealist.”
“Maybe I just haven’t grown up.”
“I need to just manage my stress better.”

I want to be the warmth of reassurance:
It’s not that you’re just an idealist.
It’s not that you haven’t grown up.
It’s not that you just don’t know how to manage your stress better.
It’s real. You’re real.

I want to be the spark that rekindles your desire to do what you believe is right, and the updraft that raises your confidence to take the first step forward.

A few years ago, I spoke with someone who has decades of experience in organizational change management with the hopes that I can do something to change my organization. I had a few conversations, but nothing useful came out of them. In fact, I came out of those conversations feeling not only useless but worthless too.

I was faced with the cold reality that change management consulting is, in fact, a business. Change management consultants need revenue to make a living, so they need to choose their clients. Their clients are executives in the C-suite who have the authority to pay the consultants. So they cater their services to where the money is.

As a result, the suggestions I got from the change management consultant were not applicable for me at all; they were for the C-suite executives. Building a business plan. Speaking to the board of directors. Budget. Finances. All I could say was "I don't know," or "I'm not in the position to do that." It felt like I shouldn't be a part of the change management conversation to begin with because I don't have any power.

Are there people who are feeling useless like the way I did a few years ago?
If yes, then how can I help them?
What can I do to find them?
​How can I reach out?

One of my answers to these questions (although not a complete answer by any means) was to write - to share my experiences and to not stay silent about the matters I care about, get angry about, feel guilty about. Someone may stumble across what I write and realize that they're not alone.

​Could it be you?

This is an answer post to my previous piece on how someone's undesirable behavior could've been seen as a symptom of a larger-scale problem but it was dismissed as only that person's problem. I see this as an opportunity cost for the organization. The organization could have:

1. become self-aware that it has a systemic problem,
2. learned about how it was affecting individuals,
3. thought about how to mitigate symptoms, or even better -
4. thought of how to stop it from the root.

​To properly address the cause of undesirable behavior in individuals and to get honest feedback about the organization, it is of utmost importance to make the person feel safe and relaxed (the person is probably on the verge of crumbling with anxiety). In doing so, there are a few things to take into consideration when soliciting authentic feedback:

1. To not make it (even remotely sound like) a punishment. The point is to get valuable information out of the person. It doesn’t make any sense to make them think that it’s not worth opening up and sharing their thoughts with you (because you look like a threat).
2. To listen, with patience. This sounds obvious, but it’s easy for managers to do one-way reprimands (not to mention unsolicited advice that doesn't even make sense) without realizing that the other person has something to say (but is too fearful or beaten up). And it can take a lot of time — and courage — for a person to open up. You never know what they’re carrying.
3. To re-frame the context as “a check-in” rather than a “meeting.” You wouldn’t want to rub work into their faces when they might be feeling constantly guilty and ashamed about not getting things done as early as they should be. Changing the environment: the location, time, and even the person soliciting the feedback may help make it less threatening (although it is better to have an authentic conversation).​

​
​I'm sure I'm coming back to the "what do you do instead of blaming someone?" theme over and over again in future posts because blaming in the workplace happens way too often and to me, it ends up harming the organization as a whole as opposed to protecting it.