Transcript
Transcript: Innovate on Demand, Episode 13: Better Humans
Todd
I'm Todd Lyons.
Natalie
I'm Natalie Crandall.
Valeria
I'm Valeria Sosa.
Jodi
And I'm Jodi Rai.
Todd
And this is the Innovate on Demand podcast.
We've touched on the subject of what one individual can do to innovate within their environment. Our guest this episode wonders about turning that lens inward. Innovation can be personal. New ideas, such as emotional intelligence, can evolve and transform us. What can we do to be better humans, individually, and foundationally as a species?
Valeria
Hi Jodi, how are you?
Jody
I'm great. How are you folks doing?
Valeria
Not too shabby. Not too shabby. Where are you joining us from?
Jody
I'm literally joining you from home. I work from home full time, but I'm not in my office. I'm actually in my bedroom.
Valeria
Well, welcome.
Jody
Thank you.
Valeria
Maybe we can start with you telling us a little bit about what you're currently working on.
Jody
Sure. I am super excited with what I'm working on, as we're at the tail end. So, I am working on a project called BCFedLeaders. It's a project came about, about a year ago, and it was with NRCan in partnership with the BC Federal Council. And the main premise was to see if we could build some sort of platform where individuals in BC could connect and share through learning experiences. And what we thought we would do was get the ball rolling by doing a podcast series, which I had never done before. And I was wanting to try and willing to try, and so, that's what we ended up doing. So the idea was do podcasts on different ideas with different individuals in BC, regardless of group and title, of things that they're interested in and share them through the platform that we were building. And we also wanted to see if we could get folks interested in doing blog posts.
And so, that was sort of the 2 vehicles, I guess, if you want to call it that. We're now at the tail end, because we've done—all told, we'll be 14 podcast episodes in, and have quite a few blog posts that will be up as well on the GCcollab page, with the idea of now doing some live Twitter chats, to get the Twitter account sort of a bit more up and running.
Natalie
That sounds wonderful. Jody, just to clarify: so you said that this was around building a network for federal employees in British Columbia, to be able to connect around learning things?
Jody
Part of it actually came from data that was compiled from the Public Service Employment Survey through BC Federal Council. And one of the identifiers that came from the data, was individuals in BC feeling that they are working in silos. BC is quite big, we've got folks that are— you know, Vancouver's the hub, but there's lots of folks that work in the interior, as well as work on Vancouver Island.
And so, I'm not surprised—I'm born and raised in in BC—to hear that. I myself have sometimes felt like we work in silos. And so that was the reason for this. And not focusing on operations, but focusing on something that we thought was neutral, which was learning.
Natalie
Thank you.
Valeria
I feel like that's a common sentiment in government, the working in silos. Definitely not the first time I've heard that.
Jody
Yeah, I was gonna say we hear it a lot, I have found over the years. I was in human resources for most of my career with the federal service, and even us—as HR folks, you would think: you know, small community, we'd all sort of feel connected, but we ourselves felt that we were working in silos. And I always thought that was odd, as well as frustrating, because I thought, if HR isn't doing it the way we think it should be done, how do we expect others to be doing it that way? So, yeah, it was interesting.
Valeria
What does innovation mean to you? And what does it mean in the context you're working in?
Jody
Well, it's new for us, new for the department, new for you because you've never tried it, then its innovative. That's sort of my definition. And in relation to this is 2 things: 1, the platforms didn't exist, and so it was something new that we were trying. Podcasts being approved is new for BC, we believe; we don't think there was any other podcast that was being done.
I think even the live Twitter chats that we're doing, actually—so I'll take a step back: the live Twitter chat from one platform is new for folks in BC. LeadersGC was our inspiration, and those folks do an amazing job with what they've been doing, in terms of connecting public servants in that way. And so, we do see a lot of folks that are in BC involved in those chats.
But generally speaking, without doing formal statistics, I feel like a lot of folks aren't necessarily connecting through social media in BC. And so that's why this sort of platform, again, I would define as being innovative, because we think it is something different, and pushing folks to try something different.
Valeria
Did you go through a lot of obstacles to be able to do those live Twitter chats?
Jody
For the live Twitter chats, I would say no, not really any obstacles other than getting folks to actually be on the chat. So it was phone calls and reminders to folks to please be active if you're interested. So how do you how do you get folks interested if they've never done it before, or they maybe don't see that they have the time to do it? And even doing the podcast episodes, folks were—what I thought was interesting—pleasantly surprised where I would ask them.
I by nature, am a very curious person and so I met folks, as an example, I met a lot of people at our innovation fair in May of this year, and heard what they were doing and thought it was really interesting. And so, "We're doing this thing called BCFedLeaders and I'd love to interview you for a podcast episode." And they'd be like, "Yeah, totally." So I didn't find too many obstacles, I guess, just maybe with any movement; getting folks going, I think, would be the biggest obstacle.
Valeria
You spent a good chunk of your time and public service in HR. Did you ever think that you'd be working—or perhaps you were always working from this angle—from an innovation, space or angle?
Jody
No, I think I was trained very much in the—what may still be existing, although it depends on your experience—the typical definition of HR, it's about compliance. Although there was, depending on the managers and the teams I've worked in, this opportunity to try things differently. Even the first department I worked in, we were doing competency-based staffing in 2001. That was new.
So I had exposure, but the word "innovation" wasn't necessarily being used, the way we see it being used now. It was just, 'let's try something different.' But, generally speaking, my training was very much about 'here's the law, here's our policies and here's sort of how we do things.' And so, trying things differently wasn't always necessarily encouraged, in terms of how I was trained.
Although, as I grew in my HR experience, I noticed myself getting irritated and just being, 'why don't we do it differently?' Or, 'why don't we try something differently? This is just this is ludicrous.' Oftentimes, I would think that: 'this is just silly.'
Valeria
Is that where the disruptor was born?
Jody
Probably. I remember I transferred from my first government department. It was with Veterans Affairs Canada, and I moved to the RCMP. And I still remember one of the teammates when I first got there, he said, "Why do you keep asking so many questions? You just want to change everything, don't you?" And I was so thrown back because I saw that he was he was uneasy. And then I felt bad that I made him uneasy and I thought, 'oh my gosh, I'm just wondering about a couple of things!' And this happened in 2004 and I literally can still picture him saying that and me feeling bad about asking so many questions.
But, yeah, I think it happens pretty soon in my career. Again, not necessarily thinking of it as innovation, but just a lot of 'why do we do it this way? Why don't we try that?' A lot of thinking that way, I guess. So maybe I always was a disruptor of sorts but I coin it to just always being curious.
Valeria
I remember I was once told, "Stop trying to make things better, just do your job."
Natalie
I don't know the turn of phrase, but I've been told similar things too. I think that's a very interesting take around the curiosity, and I agree with you on that. I've always been curious and wanted to improve things and it definitely, in certain work environments, creates an instant stress or tension with the team, which is a really interesting thing and it really begs the question, 'how to be an effective change agent?'
Jody
I totally agree, Nat. I think it's almost an art form to say that how do we how do you do these kinds of things depending on where you're at and the way you are, and really coming from a place—like you say, you want to make things for the better. In your lens, you think something isn't working. And so this art form of a change agent, so how's that going to be? What's your feel and your vibe going to be like, so that you're not necessarily coming across as—what do they call that that thing, that saying—a bull in a china shop? That sort of feel? And yeah, so I totally agree.
I think the idea of what kind of change agent—if you own that you are one—some people seem quite humbled: I'm thinking about the podcast that we did the episodes we did actually with my Free Agent colleagues, many of them said, "Well, thank you, and I'm humbled that you could consider me a leader." And I thought that was interesting.
And then when you think of change agent, that definition or competency comes up quite a bit. So I think we don't own and are maybe proud of the fact that wanting to change things for the better because we think they're not working is actually a pretty fabulous competency to have.
Natalie
Yeah, I agree. It's one I personally find that I've spent a long time honing my skills at and I think I have still a lot of work to do. Because in the end, what I've determined is that you're only effective if everyone feels like they are contributing to that change. And the moment where people feel like the change is happening to them, and it's outside of their control, makes being a change agent really, really difficult. So it's something I spend a lot of time thinking about, for sure.
Jody
Yeah, that's a great summary, Nat, in terms of the whole art form of doing it in a way that feels inclusive. And really the idea of change management, when you hear so many different theories out there. The one premise you nailed, where if the people feel like it's being done to them, you for sure will get resistance as opposed to honouring and bringing the resistance with them, so that it becomes part of the process. Yeah, it's really interesting. Fascinating.
Talking about the idea of change agent and, Nat, you had such a great, great summary in terms of, well, you did say some things I thought were interesting. One, the idea of always working on stuff. and in this case you were specifically talking about change agents. And right when you had said that I thought, well, what is it that all of us are constantly working on? I think it's always something when we talk about learning and change and trying to make things better. And so if we look at the idea of trying to make ourselves better—better humans, better whatever role we have in our life, so a better mom or dad or whatever the case might be—and this idea of mastery, which comes up a lot when we talk about learning and development; I think the idea around mastery and change is really connected strongly to innovation in the sense that if it's new for you, because you haven't tried it, and you do try it, and it's working well, then there is change that's happening. There's learning and growth that's happening.
And so, oftentimes, when I think of innovation, we hear buzzwords or ideas around apps or technology or digital this and all that, and that is obviously innovation and new, oftentimes, for the federal government. I find myself continually being drawn to internal change and internal development and innovation, and have this longing, I think, for wanting to see a lot more of that happening, that tangible, where people really do feel, like, 'I've transformed, I'm different, and this was innovative for me.' And so, there's been certain theories or concepts out there in particular that were introduced to me about 5 years ago, that really, I think changed the way I think about myself in terms of being innovative as a human being.
Natalie
That's interesting. What could you go a little bit further into that?.
Jody
Yeah, I think for me, when I became an informal Free Agent, that was about 5 years ago, and I was finding [that] I was struggling with the HR world that I was in—and honestly I was just frustrated—where clients and employees were feeling like things weren't getting done or things weren't meeting their needs. And I was frustrated because I was on a bus for 3 hours in total every day, in terms of my commute, and so I got lost; I got lost in terms of what am I doing. If I'm leaving my home and leaving my kids, it's got to be for something that I really love. And that wasn't happening.
And so, I took a downgrade from my management position so that I could work from home, full-time, and I went back to school. And it was there, when I was at Royal Roads, where I was introduced, to be honest, formally, I was introduced to emotional intelligence, and a gentleman named Ronald Short, who wrote a book called Learning in Relationship. And in those 2 books, the ideas around our emotions, again, internal: you know what's working, up there in our brains, and how that impacts how we think and how we feel about ourselves. And then, how we connect with others was new for me. It was a new way of thinking and it's something that I really— sort of became part of me.
And Nat, you mentioned the idea of always wanting to work on or seeing yourself trying to be better at being a change agent. These 2 concepts, for me: one, the emotional intelligence and the second one, Ronald talks about differentiated interactions. Those 2 concepts for me really were new, and since then I have been working on them individually for myself, because I found them so fascinating and I found that they were working. Meaning, 'okay, I tried this idea; I tried to think this way and okay, well, this— this feels good and I had a great interaction with somebody because of it.' I found myself then bringing those concepts into my work and into HR—I was still in HR at the time—and doing more facilitation and training with those concepts being introduced.
Natalie
That's really cool, Jodi, because I I firmly believe that when each individual goes on that sort of self discovery journey and makes that decision that they really want to understand who they are and make an intentful decision about who they want to be and how they want to live their lives, that's when they really start getting on that path to happiness. Or, as I always think of, Paulo Coelho says best in The Alchemist. When you're on your path, the universe conspires to help you find your destiny.
Jody
Yeah, I love it, totally. What you throw out in the universe. I'm throwing it out there and my one girlfriend always says that: "Jo, just throw it out there, throw it out in the universe and see what happens." And sometimes I'd look at her like, 'what are you talking about?' And then, all of a sudden, what you just said, Nat, was like, okay, now I know what she's talking about: the manifest destiny? I don't know. But I think that's a term from somewhere. That's what it makes me think of for sure.
And you said the word 'intentful.' I remember when I came back from my second [maternity] leave at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I was talking to the team and I said, "As HR people, we should really know our intent. We should know why we're doing what we're doing, why we're going to talk to this manager this way, why we're even referencing the legislation that we're referencing, whatever the case might be, and we should really dig deep to see what the managers intent is." And I had said that in 2011, and then fast forward into—I volunteered at a not-for-profit, and I was doing a facilitation for new managers—and I told them that story with the idea of intent. I thought it's important for us as humans to really understand it.
And that's [why] I've been tweeting about this term and now going to be taking some time off to write a book on it. 'Intentification,' the concept, came out because I just blurted it out during the facilitation: I said, "So it's really important for us to identify our intent. I think I'm going to call it 'intentification.'" And they started laughing, of course, and I started laughing. And I said, "I think I might be onto something, though." And that happened about a year-and-a half ago or so. And ever since then I've been obsessed with intent and strategy and impact and all kinds of things.
Natalie
Very interesting. Jodi, you mentioned one thing—a term, actually, that I'm not familiar with and I was wondering if you could maybe clarify: you talked about differentiated interactions?
Jody
Yeah, I'd love to. I actually have the book. Sorry, I don't mean to [laughs]. It's somewhat typical of me because I wanted to make sure I honoured the way that he's described it, so I'm going to read it out. So he says, "The hallmark of a differentiated interaction is when individuals speak for themselves, describing and owning their internal states. The result is clarity. All parties in the interaction know or can ask for and receive the motive, feelings and thoughts of others."
So I quite liked the idea. And when I read it this morning and was thinking about it, it really, to me, went to emotional intelligence and the concepts around how you feel. And then I also thought about, to be honest, the stuff that my kids are learning in school around identifying your feelings and being able to speak to them in a way that allows for dialogue versus maybe defensiveness or, or retreating. So here in BC, the curriculum is under social and emotional learning. And the idea is that the colours—maybe for you folks that have kids—are you a red or are you a yellow? Yellow means really happy and so let's talk about that. When I saw the definition this morning from this book, that's what it made me think of.
Natalie
So how do you apply some of these concepts in a culture like the federal government, where—for lack of a better way of describing it—I guess the question I want to ask you is, in the context that we live and work in, how do you add enough rigor to some of these concepts that you can introduce them and have an impact?
Jody
Yeah, that's a great question. I think a lot of folks, in general—and there's so much work happening already in this space to be honest with you—and so, depending on what you've exposed yourself to, or what you've been exposed to, you might already be living this world. For those that aren't, I have found trying to incorporate it in learning settings, but in a way that leaves individuals with something tangible. And so, sometimes training that I'll deliver, whether to this School or as a Free Agent, I bring with me tools that I've used myself and this stuff isn't new, I don't think. Like, a tool for how to self reflect; and so what does that look like? Or suggestions on meditating because of the idea of bringing focus to an intent.
And so I'll oftentimes talk about actual things that I've tried and that I've used, whether it's a 1-pager on here's how you do some self reflection, suggestions on journaling, and referring back to your journal on what you're going to do next. Talking about, as I said, certain ways to gain better focus on what you're doing in the day are some examples that I'll share because I've lived and breathed them myself or I've read about them. And I'll share that in the learning setting. Where I find it hard and frustrating, as an HR professional is how to incorporate more of that in the tools that we are asking our managers to use.
And so my mind often goes to what if we really look at the performance-management system and talk about our behaviours and the impact it's having on people in a way that we can own what we're doing. And so that we have a tool: we've got this PMA that we're supposed to use; how do we re-jig it or do it in a way that it actually helps people and make the difference? As opposed to—I think oftentimes, in the federal government, a lot of this stuff ends up being a compliance exercise versus what the true intent is supposed to be for some of this stuff.
Natalie
I can't disagree with you on that.
Valeria
Oftentimes? More like most of the time.
Jody
Although, then I think to myself, whether you want to call it buzzwords or real intent to change things, there's lots of this stuff happening. So then I think, well if it is happening, what, where are the gaps then? And so if we can look at where the gaps are, how do we close those gaps? And what are we going to use to close those gaps? And sometimes I worry that, do we think as a public service, that we're too big, and that it's not possible? And I don't believe that to be the case. I think we're at 275,000 in total, so I don't think it's necessarily size.
I do think that the complexity should be honoured and that plays into it for sure. I think the micro-cultures within cultures within a big culture is hugely complex. And that, I think, plays into why we don't see, possibly, enough of what we want to see. But as a side passion project, I'm doing a video series on the employee experience, and I'm calling it, 'Humans Are Complex. HR Doesn't Have To Be.' And so I've been playing around with these concepts as: tangibles, you got to orient, you have to onboard, and what does that look like? And maybe come up with some ideas and tools that people haven't tried and encourage them to try it.
Natalie
One thing I've been spending a lot of time thinking about recently, Jodi, is how the federal government views people management, and I I've often struggled with this. I've managed small teams and large teams; I've had almost 30 direct reports before. And all of my jobs as a manager in the government also had me managing large files of my own, as well as managing the work for my team and actually managing the individual people. And I've always thought to myself that that, in my opinion, is maybe one of the things that we could change to have a huge impact in the government, which is the actual discipline of people management is something that's quite important in how you manage your workforce, especially such a large and complex workforce, as you were mentioning.
I guess that's what I'm interested in, is figuring out how do we change the direction of that ship and then change the direction of our fleet of managers to really be focusing on their people, versus having always their own work to do or the real focus being on managing the work.
Jody
Oh my God, I'm giving you a virtual hug because I couldn't agree more. And I think the mindset is out there now quite a bit with Beyond 2020. And I think there's different ways that we can define whatever mindsets are within us whether it's paradigms or mental models, or what in this case, mindsets. And I think that that's part of the biggest hurdle that we have to face, to be honest with you. I love that you talked about people management, even versus leadership. I think's a very important distinction. I think that we, as a collective, even outside of the federal government, I think that we're using the word leadership too much and the concepts too much and I think they're getting thinned out and meaning is being lost in terms of what it's all about. If you're a manager, that is the job meaning managing others. And I think until folks that actually have control over the tangibles—i.e. our work descriptions, the way that the work is being delegated and divvied out—until we actually see real change happen where, in this case, Nat, the example you gave: if you're the manager of 80-plus or whatever the number is, you should not have operational work, or at least very limited operational work, because your job is to support and empower those that are working with you.
And we don't have that mentality; what you described, I've seen hundreds of times where managers or individuals are in acting situations, and they're now a manager or have managerial responsibilities, but they're still doing their operational job. And so, they're like, how's this going to work? And so until we actually stop—I was about to swear, but I won't—until, until we just start making things really real and honouring the fact that being a manager is hard; and if we're not going to actually take away operational duties from individuals that are looking at managing people, I don't think we'll see change. I think you actually have to own that. That is what we're going to honour and that's the job: and so, therefore, you don't have to worry about x, y and z; that is no longer part of your work description, Manager X. That would be my dream if we could see that happen.
Valeria
So, I have to say when I came in, I came into the government quite late and I came in from the private sector. And that was one thing that struck me right away was that we had people managing offices, people who had zero experience. They were just subject matter experts who had moved up and had zero people skills and didn't know how to actually manage those types of operations. It was actually quite shocking to me.
But as I hear you describe at maybe 10 years, 11 years in—however long I've been in now—the cynicism has somewhat seeped in, although I still have hope. But I feel like what you're saying is considered a luxury. It's not something that's considered seriously; I feel like people talk about it, and like in your case, they hope for it. But in practice, it's a luxury, that when you're managing public funds, can you afford to even implement?
Natalie
So sorry, I apologize, but I feel a massive rant coming on: So I apologize for taking the floor here for a second, but I obviously I can't disagree with anything you're saying on that. And I really feel like our classification system—
Valeria
Slash caste system.
Natalie
Can't disagree with that either.
Okay, I'm going to put a positive slant on it today: I don't want to fall into the cynicism. Really that's where our opportunities lie: we need to find a way so that we can value and promote people who are subject matter experts. We need to find a way to value and foster people who have the competencies and skill sets to be people managers.
Valeria
Sorry, I'm gonna interrupt your rant for a second: how do we do that? Because as I was hearing both of you speak, what I can't help but think is, one of the things that has always troubled me about HR and government is the lack of flexibility. The perceived need to over—how do you say it? It's like mass-production of HR, where people have lost all common sense of why they're doing things. And the little things that they just don't question. And I appreciate all the work you're doing, Jodi, I really do. And I think it's absolutely valuable. For me, I want it to be more of a contagion effect; how do we get it more? How do we get the message across more? How do we shift that mindset en masse?
Jody
I think it's happening. I'll be honest with you, Valeria, I do think part of it is that HR, even outside of the federal government and some HR groups, I think in an identity crisis. I think when you look at some ways we talk about ourselves, we're self-deprecating. I even spoke at a session and it was called 'Disrupt HR.' And then another one that's the common term that we hear all the time: hacking HR. And I joked about something, I think I tweeted about it, in which I said, "I'm HR, because I'm human. So I am a resource. And it just so happens that I'm obsessed with everything to do with human resources as a concept or a construct. But I don't want to be hacked; I'd like to be enhanced, I'd like to develop, I'd like to evolve, I'd like to innovate myself." And I think that there are pockets of folks that are formally in HR that are doing that. So I think part of it is almost like rebranding and marketing. I also think that, to add to what Nat was saying, there definitely are current constructs and disciplines that exist that could be tweaked and modified, like the classification system.
So that's one way to look at it. And I think the other way is the actual deliverable of doing it: so, if we do change the classification system or something happens where we re-jig something, then the actual execution, which then lies back with managers and employees, needs to actually happen. We got to own it and try it, and whether that means taking a risk, then do it because it's worth it. It's worth it at the end, because— the studies are out there. Whatever metrics we're using to support the change, use that as part of the persuasion to at least try it.
Valeria, I've heard so many people say over the years, "HR is just there to tell me no," and they'll be like, "But Jo, you never say no, you always say 'let's just give it a go.'" Well, because at the end of the day, what's the worst that's going to happen? Unless it's a charter violation, like other than that... if you were to look at the Financial Administration Act—again, comply with what out there, of course you need to comply with legislation. But at the end of the day when it's human stuff, my go-to is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if you if you're doing something that contravenes that, watch out: the answer is going to be no from me. But other than that, let's see what we can do to make things make sense. Valeria, you said, "this doesn't make sense to me. Why are we doing it this way?" Yeah, I agree. There's too much of that happening. So I think it's possible. I think that that we have the systems in place. I think that there's not enough will one way forward to do it. I'll be honest with you, I think there's too many hands in the pot.
And to give you an example of a way that it could work, I have friends that work at Shopify, and they were talking to me—and they happen to be a married couple. And my friend's husband was saying, "but Jo, I'm in the management stream"—I forget what they called it. They've divvied up their work where they actually have 2 streams. They have a management stream: all the work descriptions, all the work, blah, blah, blah, everything falls under that. And then they have the operational stream. And right now he's in the management stream—And he [said], "It's not really for me, I don't want to be a manager so I'm trying to get back into the operational stream." And when he said that to me this summer, when we were we were at a picnic together, that they've actually at Shopify, built it into their system, where if you're a manager, you're in that stream. That's what you will be coached on. That's what you're going to be trained on. That is the job. And if you don't want to do that, then come over to the operational side and we'll continue to help you with whatever skills and technical stuff that you want to do, then that's where you're going to be. And right now, as Nat was saying, our classification system muddies the waters and I don't mean that as the blame on anybody, but it's not as clear cut. And I think it could be more clear cut.
Natalie
Amazing. If I [can] round back to the very beginning of our conversation, I think that maybe we can all agree that one of the keys to moving forward is to figure out how we create more change agents in HR.
Jody
Absolutely. And folks, be nicer to the folks in HR. At the end of the day, I'm an HR lifer. But I agree with you, I think that is beautifully put, Nat. Starting from the foundation and the core. Valeria used the word luxury. I do not think it should be a luxury to understand yourself. I don't think that that only happens once you get into a management position. I think that there should be certain exposure to concepts and training that's provided as part of your orientation and onboarding. So the ideas around what does it mean to be a change agent, it doesn't have to cost a lot of money. And if you access the School, there's amazing things that you can you can look at, but we've got to sort of think that that's part of building our public service. Whether it be in HR, more change agents, for sure I agree Nat, but I think there's certain elements that you only get exposure to if you're in a management stream. And I think that we need to take that stuff out and give it to everybody from the get-go.
Todd
Thanks so much for talking with us today.
Valeria
Thank you, Jodi.
Jodi
Thanks, folks!
Todd
You've been listening to Innovate on Demand, brought to you by the Canada School of Public Service. Our music is by Grapes. I'm Todd Lyons, producer of this series. Thank you for listening.
