The Power to Influence Decisionmakers
This module I learned that raising awareness of the problem – naming and defining it – is not the same as solving the problem. And, if the interventions used are not evaluated, then we don’t know if we’re on the right track.
I remember taking an assessment when I first started the OPWL program that asked about my knowledge and use of evidence-based practice. I scored myself low and recall thinking that I make decisions based on intuition rather than evidence, an issue throughout my career. Influence is important in the workplace and, while leadership valued my questions, they challenged my decision-making and I was often unable to influence leaders. During this module, I learned that the barriers to my using EBP were not simply a preference for intuition-based decision-making, but a lack of understanding about EBP and the barriers to using it. This was partially a result of the culture I worked within.
Addison, et al., (2009), argue, “organization level analyses and solutions must address critical business issues that affect the welfare of the whole organization” and opportunities and initiatives are included as critical business issues (p. 59). The first step is to identify and define the problem – to name it and raise awareness of the issue. Many organizations use SWOT analysis as an exercise to create awareness and build strategy. Leigh (2009) argues that SWOT analysis “is most often used as a tool for scanning an organization’s internal strengths and weaknesses as well as its external opportunities and threats (p. 117). Without evaluation, SWOT is an idea-generating tool, but the value of those ideas is unclear.
The other interventions presented this week, knowledge management and succession planning can also provide false security. Simply having a succession plan or a knowledge management system does not mean that either is effective. Knowledge management can simply be a collection of facts or untested strategies. If the knowledge is passed on but not updated or if the knowledge is collected from those who are not meeting goals, then knowledge lacks meaning and value. In such cases, succession plans that rely on knowledge management to onboard and upskill employees will find they are not staying current and competitive.
The practices and knowledge that are kept at the organizational level need to be tested, updated, and maintained. I believe this is especially important when an organization taps a CEO successor internally as they missed an opportunity to bring in an external perspective that would test institutional knowledge and strategy. Such organizations risk being homogenous throughout the tenure of consecutive leaders and must be intentional about testing and researching their beliefs, practices, and policies so that decisions can be based on evidence rather than a collective belief. On the flip side, external consultants or successors can build trust and credibility by introducing evidence-based practice and linking it back to the organizational goals and language (Clark, 2006, p. 896). Evaluation leads to evidence – and evidence leads to credibility.
References
Addison, R., Haig, C., & Kearny, L. (2009). The workplace: Organization level. In Performance architecture: The art and scient of improving organizations. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. https://boisestate.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=510101
Clark, R. C. (2006). Evidence-based practice and professionalization of human performance technology. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.). Handbook of human performance technology: Principles, practices, potential (3rd ed., pp. 873-898). Pfeiffer.
Leigh, D. (2009). SWOT analysis. In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.) Handbook of improving performance in the workplace: The handbook of selecting and implementing performance interventions. (pp. 115-138). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. https://boisestate.eblib.com/atron/FullRecord.aspx?p=468975
