Category: Uncategorized

It’s been quite the experience taking the theories from papers, assignments, and whatnot, and applying them to a real-life situation; it’s a great feeling to actually be a positive impact to an organization using what you’ve learned. I was even more pleasantly surprised by the experience – perhaps you all can related – of accidentally using methods and theories from OD, finding that, even if I can’t rattle all the specifics off on demand, they’ve somehow burrowed their way into my mind to be used when it counts.

It’s been a pleasure working with the students with whom I’ve had some sort of connection with – through group projects, discussion groups, or what have you – and a few of the professors I’ve been able to chat with along the way. I hope to connect with all of you in the future, and best of luck to everyone.

CV Here:  https://app.enhancv.com/share/49311072?utm_medium=growth&utm_campaign=share-resume&utm_source=dynamic

 

AlejandroJGutierrezResume (9) (1)

 

 

 

I’ve learned a few things from the OD approach and applying it to real-world projects, as well as using it as a lens to view the work of others and their organizations.

I think the most important thing I’ve seen is the power of buy-in, and being wary of “fake” buy-in. From my startup and account management days, I’ve long known that many people will say “we should work together!” without actually following through on anything. People will tell each other “that’s a great business idea,” but then never buy the product or put in any energy to support their entrepreneur friends. People will want to make changes, then fall short of doing so. It’s not because people are evil or malicious, it’s simply that you’re not asking the right questions, and building the structure you need, to get the results you’re looking for.
Hence, my biggest take-away is that you need to have a confident vision and make sure the people you need with you are buckled in for the ride. More recently, after a long, fruitless search to actually get a project going – and having MANY promising opportunities and empty verbal or written commitments along the way – I’ve seen this firsthand. It’s quite hard to become a priority to someone, or champion a cause that is a priority to an organization – especially on an authentic level that goes beyond lip service.

As an example I see in pop culture, DEI practitioners know exactly what I’m talking about, for example – the recent national unrest has led to a new focus on DEI, but a few key components beg some questions:

• This is nothing new, so why do we suddenly care? What does it say about what input we are willing to take seriously that we only now care?
• Why are we still focusing the conversation on entities that are NOT the people the conversation is meant to reach and help? (e.g. having policy and press statements, but not talking to individual employees or stakeholders who fit the demographics organizations “want” to reach – the classic “NFL / Google” syndrome)
• The overall focus on optics over results, e.g. creating hyper-visible roles for more black people rather than addressing why the talent pipeline is inequitable and doing something about that
• The semantic creation of “diversity” as an umbrella term, rather than addressing and understanding unique needs of various communities
• A widespread lack of understanding of the actual benefits of a diverse and equitable workplace, and instead placing the burden entirely on some sort of moral imperative

 

 

—————

In the past, I did marketing consulting with startup companies. Many of them were very excited about launching an app or a product, but none of them really ever considered the questions that actually mattered:

• People said they think this product is cool, but will someone actually buy this product?
• Rather than care about downloads, is your app going to become one of the ten apps or so that people actually use every day or at least several times a week? If not, you’re largely wasting your time.

 

I’ve felt some parallels between this marketing consulting approach and OD projects; a sponsor may think you have a great idea, and want the changes you can bring. They may want everything to do with your work and commit fully. However, if you can’t make it a priority for them, something that’s going to be near their top of mind, you have a high chance of ending up in project purgatory – especially during the work from home era. If the proper level of buy-in isn’t created, the moment of commitment will be the highest level of motivation that the sponsor has – and it’s only downhill from there. This is not unlike all of us in our personal lives as we seek to make healthy habits that don’t stick – you get a little emotional boost from planning to meditate every day, but when day 6 rolls around you will find your motivation has dwindled. That’s because it’s not about the motivation, it’s about the habits, perceptions, mindset, and systems created to reach the goal.

 

Buy-in isn’t so different.

I have been heavily influenced over time (and led to study OD) by a few factors.
For one, I am a very analytical person who likes to recognize larger themes and connect them (this is in line with my Strengthsfinder evaluation as a “strategist”), as well as a person who is constantly driven for change and improvement. While this is not always linear and not always inherently good, I do subscribe to a growth mindset and try to cultivate it in all things.
For another, I am a huge closet nerd and have always been fascinated with neuroscience, sociology, behavioral economics, personal growth, and the future of work and leisure management. I am an avid consumer of the content of the likes of Richard Thaler, Dan Ariely, Adam Grant, and the Freakonomics crew (Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt), TED talks, design podcasts and work, books on marketing, decision making, cognitive biases, and achievement, books on fulfillment (like Designing Your Life by Burnett and Evans) and habits (like the work of Nir Eyal, BJ Fogg, and James Clear) and neurological processes (The Social Animal by David Brooks). I originally worked with startups and marketing, finding those areas fascinating, but eventually realized that what I enjoyed about them was the empowerment of startups and the creative process of marketing.

In a nutshell, I am of the opinion that we (Americans, but also others – and probably more so in many cases, as supported by anecdotal experience but also work like that of the Geert Hofstede institute) spend so much time working, and so much time (hypothetically) in leisure, but fail to examine these activities from a standpoint of personal fulfillment and alignment with goals. Especially as it pertains to work, the Human Capital revolution is upon us (accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic) and we are at a crossroads where we can choose to run with the current research and modern world, understanding that profit and human happiness are not mutually exclusive – or we can take a step backward, choosing instead outdated views of how people, culture, and business work.

I am also very passionate about equity and the gradual eradication of racism and the like, and the new focus on DEI (or DIBs) as a vehicle for the above change – placing value on the individual, with their individual success being a part of the organization, and their unique characteristics and perspective forming a competitive edge rather than a burden – allows for a way to integrate that passion as well.

 

• I believe that the only constant is flux, and it is equally important to hold to known truths as it is to question those truths and explore alternative ways of doing things or looking at things. Empowered employees, in line with Bion’s work, can overcome the obstacles and conflicts inherent in perpetual growth.
• The only real change comes from within, and cannot be forced. To this end, all levels of an organization deserve a voice.
• We are less in control of our raw willpower and outcomes than we want to think, so a solid process is crucial for success, and especially repeated success.
• I believe that, in the case of DEI, “diversity” has become a largely umbrella and toothless term, seeking to manipulate the output of a system rather than impact meaningful change on the input. Equitable systems and opportunities must be put into place to achieve downstream change, and each demographic group must be treated according to their individual considerations, strengths, and needs.
• OD, and consulting in general, should serve the purpose of the client and allow the client to get closer to their chosen goals and level of achievement, in accordance with their culture and values.

I see Lewin’s work present in the current movement for DEI movements – employees need to feel involved, invested, and “seen” in order to do their best work and commit to an organization. Zappo’s is famous for engineering a unique “buy-in” strategy where they actually pay their employees to quit at any time; thereby, just by showing up an employee is making the choice to work and so feels better about being there. In modern DEI theory, employees perform better when they feel like they are valued and seen in their unique identity, as opposed to minorities having to hide certain aspects of themselves to fit into the predominant straight white male business culture.

I also am fascinated by MacGregor’s X and Y theories, and I think the convergence of those two mindsets sets the stage for the conflict I mentioned above. Especially in a post-COVID-19 world where human capital is key as the battle for top talent intensifies (as lower-level work further separates from higher-level work, not completely unrelated to the largely remote capabilities of the latter), the X and Y forms of human nature and management are coming to a head, and a tolerance for working for X type employers is waning. Y type, I believe, is a lot more suited for a world where self-discovery, problem-solving, empowerment, etc. are increasingly important in a more complex world with more and more resources available to the intrinsically motivated.

One of the most important aspects of the helping relationship – whether it be in a “therapist-patient” context or in an organizational consulting context – is that the practitioner needs to take stock of their orientation in the process. The practitioner must understand and adhere to the limitations and requirements of the nature of the helping relationship, and refrain from straying outside of those professional boundaries in the given context. Additionally, one must be as aware as possible of one’s biases and personal states that may influence the process, and do one’s best to curtail any negative or distorting forces therein.
In the context of this class, perhaps the most pertinent ethical concern is that the OD practitioner must be sure that their actions is for the best possible outcome for the client, in accordance with the client’s goals and needs. It is entirely possible that what may be best for the organization on paper, or ideologically, is not something that is going to be helpful or useful in reality. The goal is to impact positive change within the client’s available framework, not according to whatever the OD practitioner’s ego would dictate. In keeping with this, it is important to maintain a professional relationship and not impose an agenda here – whether that be something like insider trading, ego, a play to get more business or a job from a client, a prestige move where a practitioner is trying to force a situation to further their career, or even just something where the practitioner forces their ideology on a situation where it doesn’t fit.

Hello all! My name is Alejandro Gutierrez, finishing up the Masters program here in OD. I live in Baltimore, Maryland. Hobbies include snowboarding, soccer, yoga, hiking, kayaking, exercise in general, travel, time with friends, and lots of audiobooks. I lived in Chile for 4 years, and Thailand for 1. Currently looking for next steps!

LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alejandrojgutierrez/

What are key similarities and differences between internal and external OD practitioners in the assessment and feedback phase (250–400 words)?

Perhaps the most stark difference between internal and external OD practitioners in this phase is due to their position in relation to the organization. Internal practitioners are more likely to have a better understanding of the organization, its politics, and the various relational functions and considerations that have bearing on assessment and feedback. In addition, they are likely to have pre-existing rapport with the organization and the stakeholders involved, as well as a better understanding on the organization culture and processes.
An external practitioner is going to be a bit more “fresh” in these dimensions, and so is going to have to put more effort into understanding the nuances of the organization and building relationships with the stakeholders and personnel involved. Additionally, they may not know the best way to gather data right away, or what to measure as the most relevant and pertinent aspects of the organization. However, they do have the “clean slate” advantage in some ways, as they are able to bring an outsiders’ perspective and may be able to avoid organizational bias. They also have the added credibility boost of an expert coming in. A fish is not aware of the water it swims in, after all.
An external practitioner is also less likely to experience fallout based on the feedback process – an internal practitioner can be adversely affected down the road by someone who didn’t like what they had to say.

Internal practitioners have the organization’s resources at their disposal, and have stronger communication channels to enact a faster process; however, being “plugged into” the organization can also compete for time, as they have to juggle the change effort with their other work responsibilities; this can also create conflicts of roles and interests. However, they are also more able to tailor their efforts to the culture and best fit for the organization.
External practitioners have a bit more difficulty getting into an organization as far as communication, trust, and reach, but they do have an advantage in exhibiting competencies and being able to have the outsider role of creating a change effort without the trappings of being part of the organization.
Both types of practitioners have to invest in building rapport, though, and either building or demonstrating their competencies to gain a perception of expertise and a sense trust in their effort. Both can have other responsibilities and projects vying for their time as well.

I think the greatest opportunity is what Burrus refers to in the Wired article that the IoT will provide “the most disruption as well as the most opportunity over the next five years.” As he discusses, the connected things in a network are important, but it’s really about leveraging that data from the human side to not only improve current processes, but to create new products and services. I say this is the greatest opportunity because I think it answers the question of the fears of automation and job loss etc. – it’s a false premise that the economy is like a pie that is being eaten, and there is less and less for the future. With creation of new products and services, new jobs and sectors will be created – so a transition will be needed, but not necessarily this grand loss. Of course, this transition will be painful and damage many people’s livelihood, but long term there is hope.

I also think a major opportunity – or a challenge, depending how one looks it at it – is DasGupta and Annunzio’s contention of shifting leadership needs. Sub-par leaders will be laid bare by the more active role necessitated by e-leadership, and so a greater focus on leadership competencies is needed, as well as a celebration of those who possess those attributes (as opposed to the stereotype of the manager we all hate).

Another major challenge, as mentioned by DasGupta, is going to be monitoring efficiency (harder to “stay on top of things”) and getting everyone up to speed so that lack of technical skills don’t affect performance. With increasingly intricate technical processes needed in business, this is going to be an ongoing challenge, especially for veteran employees.

• What challenges have you experienced developing the feedback report in three different forms?

It took a lot of consideration to determine what level of candor was appropriate for each form, as well as trying to think about what the actual needs / level of appropriate communication are for my CSO vs. what would be best for a class assignment. I am more of a succinct, to-the-point person, so doing three iterations of something was challenging in a way. I really need more experience as well to determine what is best professionally perceived and received.

• What skills do you need to further develop to expedite the process?

I need to learn how to create common themes on the fly to bring people back to the “point” in a more effective way, creating some direction. Also, more experience with what is actual helpful.

• Share lessons learned from the activity (250–400 words).

I learned a lot about higher education and the challenges they are going through:

– For smaller, more expensive liberal arts colleges, their main value proposition (small class sizes, community, networking, pretty and accessible campuses, urban locations, etc.) is all but wiped out with the prospect of online semesters due to COVID-19

– Many students are not paying full price anymore, even if they don’t need a scholarship per se. This is largely due to the supply-demand curve being in favor of the students, who, with an increasingly smaller world and more remote options, have more and more options. Universities outside the elite tier have to compete more for students. In fact, it’s likely that many colleges and universities will not make it through the pandemic or very long into the future, and the balance may reset itself.

– The “get through with a degree” approach has lost its appeal with increased extra-university educational opportunities, self-education, and many young people entering directly into the workforce (or starting their own business) to avoid incurring student debt or to get a head start. Famously, many tech companies are started by dropouts – for example. Many students and institutions still have the “checking boxes and building a resume” mentality, which is very out of sync with the real world and what is needed.

– Universities can be quite political, and there are many competing values and positions jockeying for resources and power. A wrong step can mean the end of an academic career, unfortunately.

 

Describe challenges you encountered while collecting and analyzing interview data and share lessons learned from the activity (250–400 words). 

With my specific client organization, I am having a lot of issues with availability of stakeholders and the presence of circumstances that are needed for various assignments. As it is an innovation center at a university (perhaps not the wisest choice, although in “real life” I am quite passionate about what they do), the unique challenges proposed by COVID-19, as well as simply the time of year, have made it somewhat difficult to follow along with the organization. For example, they will go weeks without many, or any, actual meetings, and much work is from home or independent, with limited hours, both due to COVID-19 and the summer season / holidays/  students on break or not on campus, which is obviously not the peak time for university activity. The actual startup accelerator is taking place starting in October, but the activities will increase in next year as they get closer to their actual “Pitch Date” in April. Additionally, as the CIE deals with innovation and entrepreneurs, most of these folks are hard to pin down as it is, but now even moreso are working remotely all over the place and taking frequent digital breaks. Many of my most relevant stakeholders are/have been on multi-week vacations.

For the executed interview, it was definitely a bit of a challenge to keep it focused and on-task, as well as to stick to 10 minutes. They had extra time, however, and so was fine (in fact, insisted a bit) with talking for a longer duration of time, so we discussed some more “off the record” type things; again, this occurred because I am actually invested in this organization outside of the course (I was a mentor and advisor for the program last year as well, and am an alumnus of the university).  I feel like a challenge for the data gathering itself, in general, has, for me, been a justification of why I need the data and what exactly I’m going to do with it – what tangibly am I going to do to add value to the organization in exchange for the effort needed to talk to me and give me the requisite data and resources?

 

That being said, this particular assignment has, so far, been pretty easy as far as asking for what I need – I chose participants with a certain degree of candor, and I am familiar with a lot of the undercurrents due to my unique position of familiarity with the institution and Baltimore city. Only major issue has been the availability of the stakeholders. I chose not to record the first interview, as he just wanted to do a phone call; people are pretty tired of Zoom at this point.