The Balance Between Instruction and Reason
One of the recommendations I have made to those managing young contributors has been to provide specific instructions until the manager determines that the person is able to think on their own and negotiate everyday workplace conundrums. Yet as much as I still think that this is inherently a good idea, I am now beginning to question its wisdom. My concern is rooted in their schooling. Over the past twenty years, the way we provide education has migrated from a balance between instruction and reason to a practice of "teaching to the test." This has robbed those in the classroom of the time to nurture critical thinking skills among their young charges.
Teachers used to say "Figure it out!" a lot more. For most students — including yours truly — those three words could engender angst, frustration and bewilderment until we figured out how to do whatever was required through a process of trial and error. But once the solution became apparent, there was a feeling of relief and even pride that we had overcome the obstacle and were ready for the next challenge. Do this enough times, and in enough ways, and one becomes an effective critical thinker.
With today’s emphasis on the empirical measurement of both student and teacher performance however, most educators have erred on the side of providing didactic instruction to ensure that tests are passed and jobs are secured. The upshot of all this is that students emerge from high school knowing the what, but not the why. Sure the student passed the writing test, but can he really make an argument on paper? Yes, she can solve for "x," but can she apply it in an environment outside of the textbook?
Is it any wonder then, that employers complain that many of those new to the workforce seem to lack the ability to reason their way through the nuances of daily work? But here’s the conundrum; should managers be responsible for teaching problem solving and critical thinking to those they supervise? Most managers with whom I have spoken say that their job is not to teach reason, but to make money for the organization. If this means spoon-feeding instructions to new employees, so be it. Yet many of these same managers grouse that they spend too much time answering what they perceive as nonsensical questions. When I point out to them that enabling new workers rather than forcing them to "figure it out" requires an investment of time, they retreat back into "it’s the bottom line, stupid!"
So what to do? First of all, accept that there’s no magic pill. When one looks at current high school graduation rates and test scores, is becomes obvious that employers will have to assume increasing responsibility for the development of critical thinking skills among the emerging generation of employees. We all wish it weren’t so, but that’s the reality.
Second, become more strategic in your approach to supervision. Look for opportunities to instill an expectation of critical thinking development in those you supervise. I know it’s just easier in the short term to answer the question, save someone’s butt, or simply do it yourself. But this creates two issues:
1) An added burden to your already overworked day,
2) A sense of entitlement among young workers that someone will always be there to make the tough decisions.
This means that you’ll have to say "figure it out" a lot more at first and resist the temptation to give in to their entreaties for help. You can start small. If employees ask you for something they could easily find out themselves, say "I don’t know, why don’t you find out?" Do this enough times and they’ll get the message, stop asking and start looking.
On more complex issues, walk the person through the problem rather than providing the steps yourself. I have become a fan of a practice called "think-alouds" in which you ask the person with the problem to explain the way he or she is approaching a solution out loud so you can monitor it and provide suggestions. This way, the individual owns the process rather than simply following your specific instructions. Patience is the key here, as it is with so many other parts of supervision.
The key to all this is follow-thru, even when it’s easier to simply give in. Effective mangers know that creating a balance of instruction and reason is critical to fostering an environment where employees think for themselves. The reward, of course, is a workplace that functions fluidly without constant handholding and support.
Case Study
I supervise the volunteer staff for a large state park in the Midwest. A number of our team members have been contributing their time and efforts for more than twenty years. Over the past year, however, I have noticed that a few are beginning to show signs of diminished function including memory of facts and ability to provide directions to visitors. Some do not seem to be aware of their challenges. Others, while aware, are having a hard time accepting this. Because many volunteers are involved with public contact and represent the agency’s goals and objectives, dealing with this issue becomes very important. We also value our volunteers, many of whom have been with us for many years and we don’t want to hurt their feelings or ruin a relationship. But over time they may become a liability to themselves and the park. Do you have any suggestions on how best to handle this?
I suspect that your experience is one shared by those working with aging volunteers across the US. With an expectation that the number of those over 65 will double in the next decade this issue will affect the Baby Boom generation as much as it having an impact on those born of the Depression and World War II. While no one wants to turn away conscientious volunteers, I understand your concern about potential liability. So here are a few suggestions to mitigate the situation:
1. You might try discreetly matching those facing diminished function with younger, empathetic volunteers. There’s no need to inform the younger person of any special need. They’ll catch on soon enough. You’re looking for individuals who are patient, understanding and supportive. You just have to be careful how you match them. This is not a practice that should be announced in any way. There’s no point in labeling people unnecessarily. Other than you and your supervisor, no one should really know. Over time, those who continue to face these challenges will simply retire.
2. You might assign these individuals only to responsibilities inside the park office or visitor center. This is for their safety as well as way to keep an eye on what they do and say. Once again, this should be a discreet practice. If you are approached by another volunteer or staff member who mentions erratic behavior or incidents of memory loss, you can let them know that you will note it.
3. You might create an emeritus position which allows these individuals to participate, but in a limited way. This might include special holidays or events where they can contribute stories or share experiences. You can team them up during these times with a staff member or another volunteer.
4. You might ask these individuals privately what they would do if they observed someone who appears unable to maintain the pace and service. Who knows? They might self identify. In some cases, they may know they’re struggling but don’t want to say anything for fear of letting you down. Remember, they’re from that Depression era when you kept your commitments no matter what.
These situations can be difficult to navigate and I admire your attempt to be proactive.
|
