Reflective Leadership...

flickr image via flickrPrince

The principal is an accomplished teacher who practices quality leadership in the provision of opportunities for optimum learning and development of all students in the school.

My teaching career has led me in many unanticipated and diverse directions. The experiences I have had, and the lessons I have learned along this journey are the platform of my skill-set and knowledge as a professional teacher and educational leader. I believe that more often than not, the path chooses us.

I have taught at least one subject to kids from grades one through ten. I taught a first and second grade split class during my first year teaching at Tall Cree Indian Reserve in northern Alberta. From that jump-off point I continued my growth and development as a teacher for five years in grades three to six within two other Aboriginal communities. I moved to Red Deer and joined the Alternative School Programs in my seventh year of teaching. I worked with grades six to ten over the next eight years within two different segregated programs addressing severe student behavior. I completed my Masters Degree in Leadership (focus on school counseling,) during this period. I then took a position as a counselor for what turned out to be one year at the middle school level. At this point my direction shifted once again, and I was fortunate to become a school administrator at Mattie McCullough Elementary School.

With every teaching and administrative position I have held, I have assumed different formal and informal leadership roles designed to optimize learning and development opportunities for all students. Additionally, I have assumed leadership roles throughout my career putting me in a position to support the ongoing and purposeful professional development of my teaching colleagues and beyond as a conference speaker, workshop writer, blogger and author.

This reflection summarizes my teaching experiences, my personal professional growth and my perspective as a learner and teacher relative to the leadership dimensions contained within Alberta Education’s Principal Quality Practise Guideline. These are the elements that form the foundation of my practise as an educational leader. Over the course of my career I have formulated a set of personal beliefs that guide my practise. Many, if not all of these beliefs, permeate my life away from school in ubiquitous ways also. I will reference these as “I believe” statements where appropriate throughout this reflection.

Engaging Classrooms II

Rule of Engagement #2: Listen to students... if you want them to listen to you. Engaging groups of learners teach each other.

flickr photo via denise carbonell

Some time ago I wrote a post called Engaging Classrooms Manage Themselves. At the time I committed to more on the topic. In a Twitter dialog at #speakchat last week I was reminded of my commitment hence this second installment. By the way, if you're a teacher and you haven't visited #speakchat, it's a fantastic weekly chat to pick up creative tips from others who predominantly speak to audiences of adults; a challenging adventure. (If you've provided professional development for other teachers you know how difficult it can be speaking engagingly to adults.)

As the #speakchat exchange centered around speaking in engaging ways, I began thinking that the quickest way to lose an audience is to focus the conversation on one speaker... I have yet to participate in a successful dialog, with one or many, where participants remain engaged without the opportunity to contribute. Then Todd Whitaker tweeted this point...

    ToddWhitaker Todd 

    If the audience is not engaged then you probably have the wrong speaker! 


Based on my belief that successful communication must be multilateral, I agreed with Todd and responded with (abbreviations expanded)...

@graingered Sean Grainger 

@ToddWhitaker Totally agree... speakers do that by appreciating audience's input/valuing their knowledge and respecting their experience. 

There is nothing worse than an arrogant speaker who approaches dialog as if he was the only one who had anything worthwhile to say. I have attended these lectures before and it is not fun, or engaging. Speakers who suffer from Humility Deficit Disorder have a hard time engaging their audience.

On the other hand, speakers who look to their audience as a group of people with knowledge and expertise that will enhance the conversation more often than not grab the lion's share of their attention. Truly skilled speakers are those who understand they just might come up against an audience member someday who can make them look pretty silly as they project an arrogant tone like "I am the one who knows here, so sit back, listen and learn from me as I blow you mind with my vast knowledge and expertise." That quiet person who knows more and has done more than the speaker will occasionally feel compelled to speak up, and at that point, the sage on the stage is out there, vulnerable and searching for his next move. That's a tight bind to stick-handle out of. Humble pie anyone?

So why not view your audience as an asset as opposed to a liability? Why not view it as a resource providing knowledge and experience instead of just a receiver of your knowledge and experience? 

The best way to speak engagingly is to temper how much you speak... let the audience in on the show.

I believe in collaboration...

I believe in collaboration. Effective leaders work among their people, not above them.

flickr photo via TerryJohnston

Barry Litun, a former Superintendent in my school district taught one of my graduate school courses in leadership. Something he said has stuck with me since taking that course. In describing how an effective leader fits into a high-functioning staff of teachers and para-professionals he said,

When people need defending, good leaders stand in front of them. When people are being celebrated, good leaders stand behind them. Most of the rest of the time, visitors to the school shouldn't be able to guess who the leader is.

I really appreciate this point of view as an educational leader. I agree that good leaders in schools need to be bold enough to shoulder the responsibility for what happens in the school, especially when they don't go well. I also agree that good leaders need to be humble and willing to let others receive the credit for doing good things (a sidebar to this is that good leaders surround themselves with good people... and they believe all have potential to be leveraged.) Most of all though, I totally agree that good leaders know how to distribute the leadership within their schools by enabling others to play to their strengths and do what they well know how to do; they honor the teachers and para-professionals in their schools by letting them be their own leaders.

Great leaders want their followers to be better at what they do than they would be at doing it themselves. They serve their people without expectation of credit as just another piece of the puzzle required to make things work. I think folks appreciate these qualities in a leader; they appreciate the respect, trust and confidence that they receive, and they are motivated by these things to offer their best as well.

Effective leaders work among their people, not above them.

Beliefs...

 flickr photo via shanzy 294

When I was in graduate school one of my assignments was to reflect on and create a set of beliefs about education and leadership. I posted a couple of these a while back. My intent was to roll one out every week or so until I had written about each one of them at KARE Givers. I wanted to compare what I thought of as my personal beliefs back then, to how they may have changed since then. My intentions were good, but other things came up and I didn't follow through.

I came across the list the other day and decided to revisit sharing my beliefs about teaching and learning. As I read through it once again, I realized that my beliefs haven't changed much at all since I wrote them down over the two year period I was in graduate school. I took the reflective assignment very seriously, and I maintain my perspective that teachers must be serious about what they believe.

Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny. -Mahatma Gandhi

In order for teachers to be sincere and purposeful about what they do, they must be grounded in a set of philosophical principles that guide their practice... their practice being the words, actions, habits and values that they choose to articulate every day in the classroom. To this end, I'm including my complete list here in this post. I will follow up over the next while to expand on each one of my beliefs about education and leadership with the intent to elicit conversations that challenge them. I think teachers need to challenge their beliefs perpetually if they are to continue seeking better ways to do what they do.

Fundamental EduKare... balance and adaptabilty

flickr photo by Tom Hilton

Earlier this month I attended the annual Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AISI) Conference. The purpose of the AISI Conference is to showcase a wide variety of Education Department-funded action research projects from all over the province. It was evident that a large number of teachers in Alberta take being involved in embedded action research within their schools very seriously... a good thing. A colleague pointed out to me today as we reflected on our experiences at the conference that although he was undoubtedly impressed by the broad range of research and results teachers were experiencing, each project was contextualized locally according to the needs, goals and environment surrounding it. We agreed that some of the projects were so specific and specialized that they simply wouldn't be adaptable in different situations. This is a problem that EduKare seeks to solve.

Large scale system transformation efforts must be grounded in foundational philosophical elements so the integrity of the process is transferable from school to school. They have to possess universal qualities allowing them to find balance by adapting to unique school contexts. Two fundamental systems quality attributes of an EduKare environment are flexibility and adaptability. If EduKare is to scale effectively in different school environments, it has to be able to fit different environmental school contexts. EduKare schools must demonstrate that they routinely balance their priorities toward providing services to address locally identified social, emotional, physical and educational needs, and they also must display adaptability with respect to addressing these needs in their unique social, physical and political environments.

EduKare- Believe it and you'll see it....

 flickr photo via Takanori Ishikawa

When I shop for new stuff I have a tendency to look for unique qualities in whatever I'm shopping for. Even in the most mundane consumer items I find myself being impressed by qualities that set them apart from their more predictable comparables. An element as simple as color can make an item look totally exclusive... at least until you buy it and bring it home; then all you see for the next few weeks is similar items in the same color. I know of what I speak; this happens every time I buy a new vehicle. When I'm not looking for it, I don't see the color I ultimately choose to buy. After I buy it, I see it everywhere. The thing is we become situationally blind to that which we aren't looking for. This inattentional blindness prevents us from perceiving things that are essentially hiding in plain view.

I was a closet optimist...

Flickr photo via KungPaoCajun

 I am grateful for those who set me straight on why we can't get things done.

Their wisdom informs me that we must see the negative side of issues before the positive.

I've learned not to think too much to avoid possibility.      

The pessimism they share keeps me from taking risks that lead down unfamiliar paths.

After all, learning and living should be safe and predictable. Cognitive dissonance makes people feel uncomfortable so we shouldn't cram too many conflicting ideas into our heads.

We don't want to think differently; we just need to stay our course- no extras.

Things are way too intangible outside the box.

Effective Leadership- Got Humility?

Effective leadership is about people- always. Without the faith of your followers, a leader you are not.

If you fail to honor your people,

They will fail to honor you;

It is said of a good leader that

When the work is done, the aim fulfilled,

The people will say, "We did this ourselves.

Lao Tzu, , 604-531 B. C., Founder of Taoism, Tao Te Ching

I can't think of a simpler concept in leadership, or one that would be considered more practical and authentic. In the measured contexts of our everyday lives as leaders, all teachers, whether they like it or not, are called upon to serve; primarily our students, but also each other, our student's parents and the learning community we are an integral part of. In humbly putting the needs of others ahead of our own as leaders, we honor them. The appreciation we receive as a result pays dividends as our followers are empowered to feel strong and supported in their important work. I strive as a leader to let good people do their work with my full endorsement, intervening only when they seek my assistance.

A former superintendent in my district said once that as a leader, you stand in front when things need defending and in back when they need celebrating... servant leadership in a nutshell. Servant leadership requires a good dose of humility to be effective, and the humility of great leaders resonates with people and inspires them to also be humble and supportive in their own leadership; to do whatever it takes to push others upward and hold them in high regard... to choose to see what's right with people.

Ben and Rosamund-Beth Zander refer to it as "giving people an A" in their book, "The Art of Possibility;" a game changer for me professionally and personally. The authors emphasize that, "giving an A is a fundamental, paradigmatic shift toward the realization that all is invented." Alas, all is invented. The lens we look through is ours alone, and it affects the way we see every other person, and every interaction we have with them. We don't even have to know what others perspectives are to initiate an open and collaborative exchange with them; we just have to know that they all have one, and most importantly, be willing to listen to it.

The humble leader thinks deeply about perspective and how it affects the equilibrium of interdependency critical to success within any functional relationship. We have to truly listen to our followers; to put aside our bias and personal perspectives to consider that there may be other ways, perhaps better ways to move our organizations forward productively and positively. The Zander's understand that when we give people an A we can be open to a perspective different from our own, For after all, it is only to a person to whom you have granted an A that you will truly listen, and it is in that rare instance when you have ears for another person that you can truly appreciate a fresh point of view.

Even the most cynical among us are susceptible to this approach. Ben Zander explains a paradoxical element to giving people an A when he says that "a cynic, after all, is a passionate person who does not want to be disappointed again." So let's not disappoint our people; let's give them all an A and strive, as the Zander's suggest, to speak to their passion, not their cynicism.

To a person, everyone of us has been shaped and formed by the variables of time and experience, and as a result we have our own personal reality tunnels; those perspectives that guide our judgments, our actions and our relationships. Humble leaders understand this, and even more importantly they understand that the private logic within all of us will affect the dynamics of every interpersonal relationship we are challenged by.

Thinking differently... really?

It takes courage to truly think differently. It's our natural human tendency to want to belong to a group; we're social beings after all. We're affected in so many ways as members of the groups we belong to, and some not so good for us or the group. As the pull of the group gains strength, it becomes harder for individuals within it to think differently- enter groupthink.

I used to chuckle a few years ago when it was very popular for teens to dye their hair straw blond, you know, like Eminem did. Every time I casually asked these kids why they did that the response was identical... "I want to be different." A quick peek down the corridor of the local mall on any given day during that time revealed literally hundreds of kids with dyed blond hair. I witnessed the same phenomena during my undergrad studies when the grunge-rock scene was pumping out of Seattle at breakneck speed. A glance through any library on campus revealed dozens, if not hundreds depending on the library, of young people being "individuals" by looking exactly like Kurt Cobain in their tattered dress and knotted-up long hair, not having showered for a few days. I'm going to call this mentality fad-eology; a portmanteau meaning a fad that becomes an ideology for the masses of group-thinkers who jump on the bandwagon. We are undeniably and ironically influenced by groupthink on our quest to be "different."

Although it's easy to understand how groupthink happens, and the examples I mentioned are rather harmless to be sure, groupthink can become complex and rather dangerous. Let's say an original and good idea was the source of whatever concept the group is espousing, and it's spread like wildfire. Over time, and amidst the fervor of the growing group and it's idea, scrutiny toward the idea wanes and members cease to be individuals with their own thoughts and perspectives toward it. They are now "idea-assimilated." I'm not sure the original idea can be considered original and good (different) anymore, (in context meaning open, critical and fluid- not static and closed.)

In education we need open, critical and fluid thinking. When once radical positive ideas become mainstream as a result of groupthink influence, the scrutiny is lost and those who dare defy the inertia of the group's idea are shunned and criticized as non-reformist. Hey, let's face it, when compared to groupthink, sometimes doing things conservatively is the most innovative just because so few are willing to acknowledge within the group that their desire for change has clouded their ability to think independently about the original issue- they become "change-addicts" lost in the fervor of the group and blind to the grassroots seed of the issue needing to evolve.

I accept that I will be criticized for my stance on this. I have seldom been caught in the web of groupthink. I question, therefore I am, and that doesn't sit well among group-thinkers. However, those who are willing to receive my questions and thought contributions objectively as I intend them to be more often than not perceive that my motivation stems from a desire to contribute to the improvement of public education, a cause of great importance requiring careful thought. Public education is too important to be influenced by groupthink. Any move to improve the education system should always and without bias be open to the scrutiny of independent thinkers ready to challenge thought, even if this challenge is dare I say, the unpopular and minority point of view.

So my appeal to educators far and wide is to become more open to scrutiny of ideas, especially fad-eology ideas. We need to think differently and objectively, perhaps even more scientifically about improving education. Twitter is such a great forum for broad conversation, so in the interest of creating open dialog around the need for critical and creative thought within the education reform process, why not use the hashtag #thinkdifferently to promote dialog contrary to fad-eology. One group with a hundred thoughts is better than a group of one hundred with one thought.

Flashpoint change...

I don't believe in the flashpoint approach to change in education. I don't think it works in the long-run and it typically creates inordinate collateral damage.

A little context... I do believe that change happens despite what we do or do not do to effect it. Our world is organic, a living system, and our education world is no different. Trying to stay ahead of change in teaching and learning is akin to pulling an already speeding freight train with a big old chain- it aint easy! All this being said, I also believe that committed educational leaders can positively and pragmatically influence change, but it must be done in a systematic, strategic and tempered manner.

When attempting to influence the education system; to contribute meaningfully to improving the teaching and learning process, we need to ensure that our efforts include careful consideration and responsible forms of leadership. This takes time. Call it slow-boil change. On the contrary, flashpoint change represents the antithesis of the slow-boil. It's quick, turbulent and violent affecting a short term change to be sure, but not one that can be sustained. Like a pot of water that heats up too fast, all we're left with is a big mess after the flashpoint boils over.

I'm confronted with what I feel relatively safe saying is a revolutionary perspective toward change in education on behalf of a good number of my professional colleagues. I have written previously about my views on reform vs revolution. Revolution is most-definitely flashpoint change. Reform in my opinion connotes more of the slow-boil characteristics of sustainable change. A slowly boiling pot of water is controlled, it gets the job done and we're left with a result that we intended- no collateral mess. I can't think of anything within education that is so unacceptable and bad for kids that it requires immediate, violent change. When the issue of change takes on a bigger focus than the reason to change, this is not good. We get all fired up and foaming at the mouth over the need to change, all the while losing sight of why the change was important in the first place. This is when creative dissonance turns to disharmonious dissent and it goes nowhere fast.

I support the mission of public education and believe strongly that we have much to be proud of within our system that ultimately exists in the noblest of causes; to support the healthy development of mind, body and spirit in an ever-changing world. No small task. Each of us as educators must value what we do, advocate our cause and remain committed to the perpetual improvement of the system if we are to ensure that kids continue to benefit from the highest quality teaching and learning. Let's face it- we're all in this together.

I'm a teacher and educational leader who loves what I do.  I regularly reflect on my practise and contribute in many ways to the evolution of the education system. What I refuse to do in the interest of slow-boil effective and sustainable change is dishonor the efforts of my teaching predecessors by implying there are elements of the system that require immediate and violent reversal. We've advanced beyond the need for this approach- grossly unacceptable elements of education past like corporal punishment and segregated schools are no longer reality... the time for revolutionary efforts in education have passed. What contemporary education needs now is the ubiquitous will to change as a reality woven into the very fabric of everything we do. Are there aspects of the system requiring improvement? Undoubtedly... but a reflective, responsible and systematic effort is the only type that will get the job done sustainably and convincingly.

Let's take control of change in education. Let's be reflective and thorough in every decision-making process. Let's work together to control slow-boiling changes within our profession and rise above the reactionary, flashpoint perspective to accept that we are all part of a good and eminent institution that can only get better when we take a tempered approach to change.

Education needs reform- not revolution

flickr CC image via Wildebeast1

I hear teacher-types speaking about education reform a lot, and this is good, however it seems to me that the more vocal so-called reformists among teachers aren't really reformists at all; they're revolutionists.

Reform means to put or change into an improved form or condition; to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses. In education, this should be a perpetual process. Education reform should be contextualized as a process of continuous improvement that doesn't include an end to the means; it should be a wagon we jump on, but never jump off.

Revolution is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Revolution connotes radical change; a shift in power. We don't need a shift in power within education. We need a perspective that understands reform as a more viable and achievable alternative. Reform would be better applied as a shift in paradigm without altering the fundamentals of the system. We don't need a wholesale overthrow of the education system... educators need simply to adopt an attitude that seeks to perpetually improve the system as it stands.

There is nothing so sacred that it should be considered invulnerable to change defined as improvement. It's all about context. If teachers were to perceive change as a positive process, (a constant that we embrace as opposed to fear,) one targeting perpetual, incremental improvements to everything we do, I fail to see how this could be bad for teaching and learning.

On the contrary, revolution generally leads to conflict. Fueling revolution is the desire for power, and power struggles are characterized inevitably by adversarial confrontation. There is no issue within education that can be more effectively addressed through the quest for power than it can through the quest for improvement.

Teachers- there are no emergencies in education. It's not about us; it's about teaching and learning, and we should always be aspiring to improvement in both contexts. I think we should understand change as an asymptote process... one that perpetually approaches the perfect state, but that will never achieve it. There is always some element that can be improved, however precisely. Otherwise, once we get to our preferred state, we've already begun to think of the next preferred state. There is always something to refine, no matter how small.

We don't need radical thoughts leading to revolutionary actions seeking power over the teaching and learning process. We do need rational and reflective thoughts leading to reformist actions seeking constant improvement of the teaching and learning process.

I can't wait to hear from the reformists on this one.

Morphic Resonance

-Christine Mason Miller

morphic resonance [ˈmɔːfɪk]

n

(Life Sciences; Allied Applications / Biology) the idea that, through a telepathic effect or sympathetic vibration, an event or act can lead to similar events or acts in the future or an idea conceived in one mind can then arise in another...

Good, effective leaders don't exude power, they exude character, morality, humanity and collaboration... the sort of stuff that rubs-off on folk without them even realizing it. Understanding morphic resonance makes leading people exponentially more efficient and effective because it moves leadership from transactional control to transformational collaboration... leaders working among their people as opposed to above them.

When educational leaders attempt to move schools toward desired futures, it's so important that their followers are on board. In my opinion, a vast majority of people appreciate leaders who lead by example; those that show they are willing to step out and be a tangible part of the effort toward that desired future as opposed to the one dictating it.

Nurturing morphic resonance is the ultimate version of leading by example. The function of leaders is to lead, but people need to follow if leadership is going to resonate. Of course, different forms of leadership are effective in addressing different situations, and we all have our preferred ways to be led; morphic resonance, however is a concept that applies to all forms of leadership... it's what happens when effective leaders tip their leadership so others are inclined to follow. Morphic resonance is what you feel when leadership has evolved from a form of control to a form of influence; the element that you tacitly feel when you enter a school displaying an authentic and positive school culture where every member of the organization is attuned to the same philosophical and systematic principles.

Morphic means having a specified shape or form. Resonance means having a lasting presence or effect; an enduring entity.The kind of educational leaders we need are those who know how to shape and form schools that work, and even more importantly, how to make that shape and form emerge and endure in the practice of others.

Silence is many things...

flickr CC image via Brett Jordan

Silence can be a virtue or a curse, a tool or a weapon and a hindrance or an enabler. I'm either annoyed or fascinated by silence; it all depends on the person being silent.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, (@nntaleb- a pretty damn sharp guy...) tweeted today about silence. He first said, "usually, what we call (a) 'good listener' is someone with skillfully polished indifference"... and then revised the statement to restate, "some reticent people use silence to conceal their intelligence; but most do so to hide the lack of it." This got me thinking for sure.

In education, there is no shortage of playing "the game"; people saying what they believe will get them what they want or allow them to avoid what they don't want, and refraining from what they should say in attempting to avoid scrutiny or punishment. Nobody within education is immune to the politics that surround everything we do, (I would assert that everything, period, is political... why would teachers think they are immune to this?) Choosing when to speak, and when to remain silent is an art in and of itself, and definitely worth constant consideration and practice.

Taleb firstly equates silence to listening with his original statement suggesting indifference on the part of a silent (good) listener. I know many who are highly skilled at appearing intrigued and engaged as they listen to what others are saying, (usually at the same time they are really just thinking about what they are going to say next.) Taleb's revised statement characterizes silence as a tool used either to hide one's intelligence, or conversely, a lack of it... kind of the opposite of the "if you can't dazzle people with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" saying. The theme I'm taking away from Taleb's statements, (and he is a regular producer of useful and thought-provoking aphorisms,) is that silence can be many things.

I have said before that teachers need to find their voice in education, so why am I talking about silence? I'm talking about silence because it's the silence that balances the voice.

Teachers need to learn how to pick their spots so to speak; to choose their hills to die on before they jump into the fray and say too much. Teachers need to get informed and aware of current issues and ideas within education before they speak. That's just the way smart people operate. If you're not ready to be one of these smart teachers, please don't speak.

On the other hand, there are highly intellectual and insightful teachers who for whatever reason, are reserved when they should be bold. These teachers who know need to step up and lead us forward confidently and capably. For these latent, would-be educational leaders, (and especially for those that need their leadership,) silence is a curse.

Within an interpersonal context, silence can be a tool or a weapon. Really strong leaders, (and all teachers are called on to lead at some point- even if that leadership never leaves the context of their classroom- teachers lead students,) use silence as a tool when they need to divert negativity, aggression or innuendo. One strategy I like to use involving silence when teachers, parents or students come to me with a huge problem, (problems are always huge to the people experiencing them,) is to ask them after they've let me have it about their concern, how long it took them to articulate what they were bringing to me, and what they wanted me to do about it. When they answer me with whatever time they come up with, I tell them that I will respond to their issue or request for action after I've thought about it for the equal amount of time. It's interesting that by the time this period has passed, much of the stress of the original problem seems to have passed too. In this case, silence is an enabler... sometimes people just need to be heard and not spoken to.

As a weapon, silence can be particularly effective, but not necessarily in a positive way. Just as all teachers are occasional leaders, they also occasionally need to be led; that's just the way it is. When managers of education have an axe to grind and leave people hanging out there in the ether without direction to illuminate their inadequacy; this is not good. I submit that silence as a tool is much more appropriate than when used as a weapon. It's in this context that silence is always a hindrance to collaboration, progress and solution-focused processes.

So whether I'm annoyed or fascinated with silence really boils down to the question of leadership in education, and how effective educational leaders are regarding their choice to use it. Some are pretty good at it... some not so much.

I get annoyed when uninformed people blabber on without any substance to what they are saying, and fascinated by those among us that have an uncanny ability to pick their spots.

I am fascinated by those who pull silence out of their strategic toolbox when they need to enable others, but get very annoyed by those who use silence as a weapon to demean, belittle or just put people in their proverbial place.

Have you thought about how you use silence lately?