How are we building the capacity of new leaders when K12-higher ed is not focusing on 21C leadership?

 It is not just K12-Higher Ed – it is our culture as a whole. We continue to see education policies that are top-down mandates. We continue to have to ask for Federal “waivers” to address funding needs. Federal and State mandates do not encourage any school or district leader to risk doing what the students need vs. doing what they are told. Leadership, at this point, is about all educators saying, “enough!” That would be the beginning of real leadership in education.


Funny…… learning is either “have to” or “want to”. “Have to” (compliance-based) is what we have in school today… “want to” (desire and meaning-based) is what we should aspire to. I do not see any meaningful change happening in our schools until our leaders understand that we need to change our worldview about how we consider how our students "want" to learn. When students are running to school because they can’t wait to learn, THEN we will know we have become successful – NOT because we have better test scores.

A Reflection on Leadership

 Recently I've been reflecting on my own journey as a leader. I've had positions of leadership as defined in the org chart but does that qualify me automatically as a leader?  Reflecting, I think not. An organizational position is a title, not a behavior. Leading is a behavior, and even as I have said in my previous writing leadership is often a collective energy within the organization.  Maybe an individual, maybe the collective. For that matter, I'm sure leadership is more about the collective than the individual.  No one can be an organizational leader alone. This is why the concept of leadership gets so much attention in writing, youtube, and social media.  Leadership at its essence is about relationships within the organizational collective.

In discussing leadership as a concept, I've often said, "We are emotional beings in a social setting." What I mean by that is with everything that happens to us we each first experience emotions and/or feelings about that experience or situation. Yet, we need to exist within a social setting where not everyone else experiences or feels the same.  Our experiences are formed by each of those situations individually. When we take an organizational position of leadership, we need to acknowledge those unique differences.

Not to oversimplify, but I will!  Basically, all organizations have some similarities- they are groups of people with a common perceived/desired outcome.  Size makes a difference but they are all similar in their shared goals/outcomes.  Organizations are about the relationships among the members and how well they work together to accomplish the desired outcome.  In my humble opinion then, the leader is first responsible for those relationships, not just the desired outcome. People first! 

I was recently considering the function of professional enablement within the organization.  Professional enablement is the term I use to describe a higher level of  professional development. 

While there can be some flexibility in professional development, the caliber of skills needed in today’s businesses are typically too complex for people to master in the normal “sit n’ get” form of professional development and take home PDF’s or notebooks.  This is where the switch to professional enablement provides true growth opportunities for employees.

Professional enablement is most successful as an investment in teams. The enablement process starts with team members reviewing the day-to-day reality of each team member’s role and, as much as possible, to understand and possibly define, the outcomes that each role needs for team success. This simple process of understanding employees’ roles and what they need to succeed can move an organization into breakthrough performance. 

 

Incorporating professional enablement in the workplace does require a bit of “slowing down,” however, to allow teams to both consider as well as reflect and synthesize their learning.  This process should also provide some experimentation though, in being creative and producing something new, so making space to do so amongst production work can be valuable for individual and team growth. Yet, It can be challenging in the workplace to find opportunities to be enabled to exercise new things you’ve learned.  

 

In my opinion, the modern workplace needs this explicit shift to incorporate professional enablement for individual and team reflection and synthesis to work alongside any professional development programs like trainings and seminars.  This will make it easier for your team members to adjust to professional enablement. Showing your team members that you’re willing to invest in this and make space for them to build their talents will be recognized as mutually beneficial for all involved.

 

OK, so that’s my definiton of professional enablement.  The enablement process does start with a form of professional development with the introduction of “How enablement works.”  It also should include some form of coaching through the process in difficult situations, then mentoring as the process becomes more familiar.  The assumption is, of course, that teams are constantly trying to improve.  Thus the enablement process of review, then reflect and synthesize becomes, over time, a key standard operating procedure for teams.

Leadership is always about when and where the buck stops. Ultimately, everyone will step aside or fall away when a truly difficult issue needs to be resolved. If there is a way for the difficult issue to be "bounced up" in an organization, it typically will be.  This fact can give a leader a bit of a "hero" complex - "The issue is coming to me to fix!"   Well.... not actually.  It is coming to you because others are not necessarily confident in their thinking about the resolution - or - they don't want the possible negative  fallout if they are wrong in their resolution. Thus, it comes to you because you are the last stop!

What you don't want to do is try to actually be the hero and resolve the issue alone.  If an issue is big enough that others are hesitant about its resolution, you can rest assured they do have ideas that might assist. They were just not confident enough without your support or agreement.  Therefore it is important to ask others their opinions. 

It is also important if the solution comes from someone else's input.  By giving them credit and support, acknowledging their solution, you show them respect and support and they respect you more.   True leadership is not about making the tough decisions, it is about building others capacity within the organization to also make decisions.  The ultimate leadership function is to make sure decisions are made at the appropriate level, with trust and respect. 

Input from others is important, but "the buck stops here," cannot be avoided. How each of us handles that fact helps to determine how others see us as leaders. 

The CULTURE & CLIMATE of an organization are the KEYS to Success!

 

CULTURE:  How we do things here.  How we do things here affects:

CLIMATE:  How it feels here.  How it feels here affects:  ORGANIZATIONAL SUCCESS!

 

Organizational success is most often based on the positive culture and climate of the organization. Critical success factors for leadership include understanding the effects of culture and climate in effective communication, relationship building, motivational and organizational skills, and decision-making style. 

 

The culture and climate of an organization are affected by both individual conscious and rational feelings as well as subconscious and clearly irrational feelings depending on the communication styles of organizational leaders.

 

One of any leader's goals should be to assist other organizational leaders in becoming aware of the realities of the effects of their own personality and communication style and how that understanding can help to improve organizational success.

 

This process includes:

•  Assisting in bringing this awareness for consideration through reflection and discussion

•    Assisting in articulation and alignment of Communication, Vision and Values within the 

   organizational CULTURE to assure a positive CLIMATE that supports strategy, innovation 

   and operations.       

•    Embedding a sustainable, positive CULTURE & CLIMATE of excellence within the organization.

•    Assisting in the Development of a leadership cadre and coach leaders and teams on the tools and 

    methodologies available to them to achieve peak performance within this CULTURAL 

    framework.

•    Participating in and assist in the facilitation of problem solving within the organization

•  Inspiring and enthusing all team members by building the case for strong cultural leadership

Rather than assuming that "being in charge" is the difference maker, these leadership behaviors are the key to organizational success

Winemaking and Leadership?

 I know it might seem ridiculous to compare the two. However, I think there is more to this than not…. This idea came to me when I initially thought about the comparison. Originally I used the statement: “Leadership is like winemaking…. ~ the grapes don’t listen either!” Ha-Ha, I thought, then I paused a minute to realize there really are direct comparisons. Successful leadership and winemaking should both based on “influence” not control. As a matter of fact, it is the influence of both what you do and what you don’t do that affect success in each. And, while my original statement that “grapes don’t listen either,” is certainly true, they do accept the attention they get or not, just as employees do. Thus, again, both leadership and winemaking are about “growth.” 

How we grow our organizations is not just about profit either, any more than winemaking is only about how many bottles we produce. In both cases growth is about the quality of the outcome within each of the processes. Quality of human growth and development and quality of farming in supporting grape growth. Maybe you can start to see why I think there is a direct comparison. 

Organizations are not a lot more than a group of people working together, whether a trucking company, a school, insurance company or factory. Hopefully all involved have a shared belief in company direction and outcome. When all are in alignment, things work. Thus, company culture (how we do things here) and climate (how it feels here) are critical to the successful human growth and development within. When company culture and climate are positive for organizational members/employees, the company is likely to be quite successful. And, of course the real key to continued success is how well the organization handles change - either transactional or transformational (these topics will show up in the newsletter later!). 

We humans really like to have our patterns and behaviors stay the same - and why most of us roughly live the same life day in, day out. The fact, however, is life never allows things to stay the same. For example, today we are faced with more forced change than ever - COVID-19, cultural and racial protests, politics, climate issues. And we each have a personal opinion about the changes being pressed upon us. The fact is, change is as inevitable as the limit of time on our lives, like it or not. It is for this reason that I found my first true professional calling - working with people in organizations to support change. I’ve done both consulting from outside and I have taken leadership roles within organizations. It’s always been all about growth! 

Alright now you ask, where did the winemaking come in? As my life progressed I found myself wanting to find a business I could operate after my professional career. What I found, and bought, was a wine bar! I got a chance to taste thousands of wines - what a horrible part of the business! While I was tasting and buying wine I found my focus in the wine bar would be with the small, boutique, winemakers. These winemakers, male and female, were doing amazing things with blending varietals, farming methods, and fermenting techniques to make some amazing wines. Their talent was obvious. It was one of these small boutique winemakers that ultimately became a close friend and my winemaking mentor as I helped him harvest, make, blend, and bottle his wines. It was our conversations in the winery that started me thinking about the comparisons between leadership and winemaking. Farming is all about change, one day, one week, one month, one year to the next. To truly become successful and make a consistent wine, vintage (year) to vintage, the winemaker must change his/her processes to meet the farming needs of the grapes, at the time. The same is also true in leadership

In my opinion, it is in using a light but meaningful touch in leadership that makes the biggest difference in how organizations change to meet their current situations- how we treat people with respect rather than control. It is the same my friend pointed out in winemaking - let the grapes tell you what they need, use a soft touch. I know, and he also supported, this winemaking belief is not for everyone. But what I have learned after a decade or working with him, his wines are incredible. His “light touch” is incredibly successful.

Cultivating Leadership - "It is time for growth."

 Cultivating Leadership

Politicians, educators, business owners, and other organizational leaders don’t seem to know how to handle the world of the 21^st Century.  Most are “doubling down” on behaviors that “always worked before.”  While these decisions to continue with previous methods are not being successful, current leaders, nonetheless, don’t appear to know what to do next. 

 

It is time we realized that the past will not work in the future.  Our population, cultural norms and functional needs are changing rapidly.  Meg Wheatley (1992, 2006) identified this process in her book Leadership and the New Science:Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. In the text, Wheatley tells us,

 

The world has changed. It blares from news reports and blazes across our screens in the terrifying images of these times—wars, terrorism, migrations of displaced people, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis. Chaos and global interconnectedness are part of our daily lives. We try hard to respond to these challenges and threats through our governments, organizations and as individuals, but our actions fail us. No matter what we do, stability and lasting solutions elude us. It’s time to realize that we will never cope with this new world using our old maps. It is our fundamental way of interpreting the world—our worldview—that must change. Only such a shift can give us the capacity to understand what’s going on, and to respond wisely.

 

“Our worldview – that must change.”  Yes.  We must move our worldview from looking at profits and costs with money as the outcome to having profits and cost be about people.  We must realize that “WE are the change needed in the world” – “WE, the people.”    

Back at it!

 I've been away from this blog for a few years (four years actually - time flies!).  I was doing a leadership job in higher education that did not include teaching, so I set this aside.   As the COVID crisis is now affecting all aspects of schooling, I decided it was time to retire. Retirement for me will be continuing to write and, thus, the blog is being reborn!

Is it really leading OR following?

After decades of research, many books/articles, courses and thoughts, we seem to continue the dialogue around leadership as a person rather than a set of behaviors or even an energy within an organization. As I reflect on both my own experience as a leader, my study of organizational leadership as an academic topic, and as I look at current organizational leaders I am coming to the conclusion that leadership truly is an energy and set of behaviors by someone within an organization, and it does not necessarily have to be the head of the organization. The difference is of course and the assumption is that the head of the organization is, or should be, responsible for those behaviors and that energy.  But, if we see that it is the behaviors and the energy that are the critical pieces, then it does not require it be a single person.
The necessary behaviors and energies I am talking about are those that establish the functional and operational culture of the organization.  That would include beliefs, values, commitments as well as communication, personal interaction, integrated functions, and such things as celebrations and significant symbols.
So, maybe a good next question might be, do we need the head of an organization to also be "the leader?"

What Does it Take to Be a Visionary Leader?

What Does it Take to Be a Visionary Leader?   OK, so I admit the title may be misleading.  I'm fairly certain that if ANY leader isn't visionary they are not really a leader.  To me that is one of the primary separations between leadership and management. Leaders are visionary, managers don't necessarily have to be. Leaders need to be able to consider future needs and potential problems as one of their primary functions.
Nonetheless, Brian Tracy (SuccessNet Online) suggests there are "Seven Qualities of Visionary Leadership."

1. Leaders inspire others because they are inspired themselves. They are excited about the possibility of creating an exciting future for themselves. They get up every morning and they see every effort they make as part of a great plan to accomplish something wonderful with their lives.


2. Leaders are optimistic. They see opportunities in everything that happens, positive or negative. They look for the good in every situation and in every person. They seek the valuable lessons contained in every problem or setback. They never experience "failures;" instead, they write them off as "learning experiences."


3. Leaders have a sense of meaning and purpose in each area of their lives. They have clear, written goals and plans they work on every day. Leaders are clear about where they are going and what they will have to do to get there. Their behavior is purposeful and goal-directed. As a result, they accomplish five and ten times as much as the average person who operates from day to day with little concern about the future.


4. Leaders accept personal responsibility. Leaders never complain, never explain. Instead of making excuses, they make progress. Whenever they have a set-back or difficulty, they repeat to themselves, "I am responsible! I am responsible! I am responsible!"


5. Leaders see themselves as victors over circumstances rather than victims of circumstances. They don't criticize or blame others when something goes wrong. Instead, they focus on the solution.


6. Leaders are action-oriented. They are constantly in motion. They try something, and then something else, and then something else again. They never give up.


7. Leaders have integrity. They tell the truth at all times. They live in truth with themselves, and they live in truth with others.

This is certainly a good list. I would say it is a good list for leaders, period.  I remain convinced that being visionary is a significant trait of good leaders. I am not convinced that "visionary" leadership is a new, separate, model

Leadership and the value of reflection.

"In the end it is important to remember that we cannot become what we need to be by remaining what we are."  Max DePree, Leadership is an Art. 2004,
"It is easy to go astray when we forget that the heart of leadership is in the heart of the leader." Bolman & Deal, Leading with Soul. 2001.
"We are emotional beings in a social setting."  Faverty lecture. 2004
I wish I could remember where the saying came from, it may actually have been the Bible, "as within, so without."
All of these quotes suggest that the function of leadership is an 'inside job,'  that is inside the head and the heart of the leader.  How does a leader bring to light the issues living in the head or the heart?
Reflection.  

Reappraisal of technology in the classroom

For some time now, the call for technology integration in classrooms has been a regular topic of school reform, transformation, and improvement. Nonetheless, many educational leaders will attest that while technology is increasingly finding its place in classrooms, it is only a small cadre of teachers actually utilizing technology in classrooms to improve student learning.  It may be that merely "integrating" technology is not the real issue.  If pedagogy itself is not changing through the use of digital technology then the problem is clearly not the tool but the method in which it is used.

 Much has been made of this inability of technology to add any real capacity to improved student learning regardless of academic level. Increasingly the evidence has shown that "teachers have been painfully slow to transform the way they teach, despite the influx of technology into their classrooms" states Benjamin Herold in his article for Education Week, June 11, 2015. It is, therefore, critical for 21^st Century educational leaders to address this situation.  There are many already concerned with the situation:

“In general, teachers at many schools seem to view technology as a more valuable tool for themselves than for their students.” Kelly Shapley (2015), Educational Researcher, Shapley Research Associates.

“The net effect”, says Leslie A. Wilson (2015), the chief executive officer of the One-to-One Institute, a nonprofit based in Mason, Mich., that has consulted with hundreds of schools and districts across the country and world, “is that schools rarely realize the full promise of educational technology.  There's nothing transformative about every kid having an iPad unless you're able to reach higher-order teaching and learning.  If schools take all this technology, and use it like a textbook, or just have teachers show PowerPoint presentations or use drill-and-kill software, they might as well not even have it."

“Public schools now provide at least one computer for every five students. They spend more than $3 billion per year on digital content. Nearly three-fourths of high school students now say they regularly use a smartphone or tablet in the classroom.  But a mountain of evidence indicates that teachers have been painfully slow to transform the ways they teach, despite that massive influx of new technology into their classrooms. The student-centered, hands-on, personalized instruction envisioned by ed-tech proponents remains the exception to the rule.”  Benjamin Herold, Education Week, “Why Ed Tech is not Transforming Teaching” (2015).

"The introduction of computers into schools was supposed to improve academic achievement and alter how teachers taught," said Stanford University education professor Larry Cuban (2015). "Neither has occurred."

The purpose of this reappraisal is not to make projections or proposals to be followed for success, rather to consider the teaching, leadership and/or management issues that likely must be attended in improving this situation: 1. Developing a culture for critical digital pedagogy for use in K12 schools or HE program,  2. The leadership support needed for same, and  3. The sustainability of effort and effect of the leadership for ongoing success.

Suffice to say my reappraisal is based on the belief that each organized professional educational group of shared focus, e.g. schools, districts, or education departments must answer the important pedagogical questions around these three areas themselves. Their decisions regarding pedagogy, technology, and student performance will require shared goals, shared commitments, and regular review of their growth. Unless the professionals themselves ask the important questions about improving critical digital pedagogy and student performance, regardless of tools used, any real success will be fleeting. 

A "NEW" year of more of the same.....

Each and every year, prior to my retirement this Spring, I remember always looking forward to the new school year.  I remember saying that the Summer in which I did not look forward to the Fall and the new year would probably indicate I was done. While this Summer I knew I was not returning to the daily function of school, I nonetheless was still excited. Maybe excited is not the correct word, I was more hopeful.  More hopeful that some of the early adoption /"underground" educational issues would start to really pay off.  Issues like fewer days of testing pointless facts, increased awareness by principals of the critical job they play in establishing a positive school culture, of increased technology use by students in tech savvy classrooms, and teachers owning their own professional development needs rather than spending two days prior to school in large body "sit&get" training. Sadly, in visiting schools and talking with teacher colleagues this year did not start out as I would hope. The tests are still scheduled for too many days with inadequate feedback fo teachers, principals still read from lists of top down policy, technology is still not much more than a some computers (or chromebooks - which are no different) in classrooms, and teachers had to sit through another round of sit&gets that will ultimately only add more notebooks gathering dust on their shelves.

The function of mandatory change

In some of the courses I took in gathering a Master's Degree in Counseling Psychology, there often was mentioned the condition of personal change.  How do we change, why do we change, why would we want to change? Obviously, counseling is about change.... of one sort or another.... change in behavior, change in relationship, change in thinking, etc.  Counseling assumes that the person 'wants' to change and the counselor can assist.  So how does change work when someone else tells someone to change.  Sometimes in an intervention the support of the others suggesting the need for change helps the person to see they want to change.  But what about the function of forced change - "you have to change"?  I'm not aware of too many people that appreciate being told that they have to change. That often ends relationships, jobs, etc.
My point here is why do we tell all teachers that they have to change.  I mean really what was the point of NCLB or even Race to the Top?  Trying to force teaches to change, either through perceived incentives or consequence, will never work.  There is not enough incentive or enough consequence as long as the policy tries telling teachers what to do AND how to do it.  While my experience has shown me that teachers try to do what they are told to do, most know that what they are doing is not best for their students.
The bottom line here is this, educational policy tries to control the outcome of every classroom and, for that matter, every student.  Control is an illusion and will never 'force' change.  Since we know now, after 25 years of trying that forced change doesn't work, why don't we incentivize change in education differently.  First, let's give teachers full responsibility AND accountability for student learning in their classrooms.  They are the only ones who really get to know the needs of the specific students in their classrooms. Second, let's pay them better given what we are asking them to do. Every teacher needs to be in charge of their own classroom AND every teacher needs to know that student outcomes are their responsibility AND every teacher needs to be remunerated at a professional standard.  We don't need tests to tell us whether they are successful or not. Just require each teacher to provide an annual portfolio of each student's work that shows that the student gained academic improvement while in their classroom. Finally, third, let's make certain that every school has a highly qualified leader that will assist teachers in their daunting tasks.  Leadership of a school needs to be about servant and supportive leadership.  If teachers are 'in charge' of their classrooms, there is no need for an authoritarian leader.  Principals are responsible for the social culture and climate of the facility.