Introit

What's Your Social Media Communications Strategy?

Call it chance, if you will: I encountered two well-written stories this week, both of which treat the theme of a communications strategy vis-a-vis social media.

The first appeared in the May/June edition of The Trustee's Letter. Rhonda Durham, executive director of the Independent Schools Association of the Southwest (ISAS), writes in "It's Gone Viral" about the notion of "scandal" in a school community, and the associated spread of that scandal through the various channels of a school's constituencies. She refers to gossip and rumor as "electronic missiles," which can "emerge in blogs, community chat rooms, even national media and courtrooms. Thus, perhaps now more than ever, an embarrassing event may spark an urge to manage the content and circulation of the story."

What is not treated overtly, however, is the role of social media as part of what truly makes the issue "viral." In fact, I would submit that the scandal is far more likely to be spread by means of Twitter and Facebook (and other social media in that same vein) than by blogs, email, or community chat rooms. Twitter and Facebook are akin to accelerants placed on an already-burning fire. There ought to be an entirely separate article on the true viral nature of message-spreading. Please understand that Durham's focus is NOT on what kind of media are used to spread the message, but rather on what the school's true role is in dealing with scandal. It is a very insightful piece, and you ought to read it sooner rather than later. I commend it to you.

Enter Andrew Hill, whose weekly column "On management" in the Financial Times (May 15, 2012) touches on this very theme. The opening sentence reads, "Last Thursday I was, briefly, head of communications for a large Canadian widget maker, coping with a wave of Twitter-borne rumours about the arrest of its chief executive." Happily, though, it was a simulation. What a great idea -- a virtual exercise that the PR firm put the company through in order to give it some hands-on experience in handling this kind of crisis. (Schools would benefit from such a thing...) He then highlights the irony that, while this simulation was occurring, a real event was happening between two beverage companies.  It was "amplified through Twitter, Facebook, and other online media."

To make a long story short, Hill draws attention to the nature of the "media relations crisis," showing (rather convincingly) that the tactics and the stand-off itself turned out to be rather traditional, meaning that the social media participation didn't change the actual nature of the crisis. I like his point, and there is instruction in there for schools.

What is remarkable about the beverage stand-off, from my point of view, is that a young upstart beverage company was able to disrupt (rather seriously) a well-ensconced, elder company with a global presence. What's more, that global company has a strong social media presence and savvy, on which they pride themselves quite openly. However, that strong presence was unable to handle the upstart's attempt to start a mini-campaign via social media within the space of mere days.

Social media = speed and agility, when it comes to potential communications issues for a school. There is much that is positive for schools, when it comes to social media, but the potential negatives should be planned for. And so, I return to Hill's tale of the PR simulation.

We ought to be simulating those kinds of events, then share the results of those simulations with fellow schools, so that we all acquire those needed skills.

So I ask: what is your school's social media communications strategy?

Caveat on Establishing Innovative Cultures

As I continue to engage in (and follow fervently) conversations regarding innovation in independent schools, I feel compelled to shine some light on something of tremendous importance, something about which schools haven't thought deeply enough, in my opinion.

That something is a formula: existing school culture + innovation =  ?

Culture is a big deal in schools. We might be talking a lot about innovation right now, but a question schools should be asking is this: "Is our culture ready for innovation?" There are consequences to innovation within your school's culture. Why? Schools have always thrived on rules, predictability, and systems (hierarchies would qualify as a 'system', for example). This triumvirate of "how we do school" makes it difficult to deal with change, generally speaking, let alone the kinds of change that go hand-in-hand with innovation.

Schools should not tread lightly into the territory of "innovation." This is not how we "do school" or "do business," if you like. As Luke Johnson wrote in his Financial Times column, "The Entrepreneur" the other day (May 9, 2012), "The essence [...] is a willingness to do what it takes to get things moving. That means foregoing the joys of clarity for the messy truth that comprises any new venture -- imperfect products, clients who don't pay, the wrong staff, insufficient capital and so on. Such projects prosper thanks to many incremental wins and plenty of errors, rather than a few clean victories."

Schools would do well to heed his cautionary note. Foregoing the joys of clarity? Good luck. Plenty of errors? Not something with which we've been comfortable We need to think about how to realign school culture in order to allow for messiness, to embrace it. Engineering culture is not easily accomplished. I commend to you Gideon Kunda's work in this regard.

Many entrepreneurs, as Johnson highlights, "hate to give a definite 'yes' or 'no' to difficult questions. They prefer to say 'perhaps', and delay to see if more information emerges or their bargaining position improves. Most of us are impatient to know the detailed price and exact terms of a transaction; but actually tolerating vagueness for a while can be the more profitable path in the long term."

Furthermore, "This approach does not reflect a lack of decisiveness. Rather, it demonstrates realism about the future: our ability to predict is weaker than most of us would like to admit."

Are we, as schools, prepared to "muddle through" in such circumstances? Are we prepared to realign cultures? Are we prepared for the time and effort it will take in order to make that happen?

We should be purposeful and intentional about innovation, not simply talking about it because "it's cool" or "the in-thing" to discuss.

In the end, it's all about culture. 

Fore! Measuring the Head's Performance

Heads Speak for Themselves: May 2012

It's May, which means that despite the underlying awareness of all the end-of-year events and unresolved matters, one eye is glancing hopefully at the calendar in search of an opportunity to schedule the season's first round of golf. Meanwhile, the other eye notices with somewhat less enthusiasm the e-mail that has just come across the screen from our Board Chair, reminding me that we need to arrange time for my yearly performance review. I should say at the outset that I embrace the concept of the review. Years ago, in encouraging me to undergo with the proper spirit my first performance review as a rookie head of school, the Chair reminded me sagely that "even though we might be in good health, it's wise to get a physical every year." Yet I am guessing that your experiences with evaluations of your own performance as school heads, like mine, have been as varied as I fear the results of my swings will be whenever that first round of golf comes to pass. In some years, there were no performance assessments done; in one way that was a relief, but also not conducive to professional growth. At other times a process was followed, but there was lack of clarity regarding the criteria on which the assessment was based. A third variety of review entailed exhaustive gathering of evidence, several times during the year, to demonstrate the scope and value of the work I had been doing as head. This approach generated a lot of information for analysis; the difficulty lay in the amount of time involved in chronicling the work on top of actually engaging in it.

Two years into my current tenure, I was asked by the Board leaders to compile a semi-annual portfolio as a key element of my self-assessment. I recoiled at this directive initially, concerned once more about the time it would require and bothered by how tedious and redundant it might turn out to be--given the reports I was already doing prior to each Board meeting. Three years later, rather than being simply a compilation of meetings held, constituents contacted and plans developed, the portfolio has evolved into a “Journal of Leadership Practices.” It is the fruit of any progress I have made in becoming more self-reflective, and of our Board's great care in defining the leadership practices that are required to serve the school's best interests. These include: strategic thinking, pre-planning, maintaining thoughtful oversight of objectives the head and his/her team are pursuing, managing and shepherding the Board to advance the school's mission and vision, demonstrating initiative and focus, serving as the “voice” of the institution and its highest aspirations, and being an agent of positive, necessary changes. Thus, each January as well as June, I consider any relevant examples and enter them into the Journal. The list of entries is not so much a “snapshot” of discrete individual activities, but rather a “video” of a related series of actions which may (and I hope that is the case) or may not underscore a pattern of leadership behavior.

Considering the Journal entries in toto is similar to analyzing clips of great golf swings, something I have been doing with unwarranted optimism during the off-season. Unexpectedly, I've discovered a few interesting parallels between the elements of strong school leadership and what makes for a successful golf shot. We begin with club selection, the choice of the proper resources-- and personnel for the school head-- to make possible all that follows. The approach to the ball, proper stance included, are akin to the leader deciding to take initiative and to act. He or she must exercise foresight, carefully considering the intended goal, just as golfers visualize where they want the ball to wind up, and how to get it there. Proper grip is essential for a great shot, just as the school head needs to have a handle on issues both large and small. The swing is of course the key component, like the action the leader takes or the decisions the leader makes. The swing must occur in the right plane, with the club pointed at the target--and for the school head, actions must be aligned with the school's mission. The head and eyes of the golfer serve as anchors for the swing while the legs and arms turn; they are apt metaphors for the focus and steadiness that the school head must provide. And finally, there is the importance of follow through, whether we are referring to the golf swing, or to our leadership roles.

All of these elements and others must be in the mix in order to put together a beautiful swing or successful leadership. Watching the video reveals to the golfer why his or her shot was so good--because the golfer can pause the action, see the component parts of the shot, and then admire how well they flowed together. The process inspires the golfer to maintain and perfect those components to the point where they become habitual, routine, embedded in muscle memory. In the same way, by considering the inventory of leadership practices through the portfolio process, I have become more aware these past several years of the components or “stuff of school leadership,” to the point of noticing when I am engaged in those practices, and seeking to replicate them in a variety of circumstances. That is the ultimate value the “Journal of Leadership Practices” portfolio has had for this head of school.

Good luck with your own review process, and best wishes for a successful home stretch!

Richard J. O'Hara is President of John Carroll School (grades 9 to 12, Bel Air, Maryland). He can be reached at rohara@johncarroll.org.

Manage for Innovation

Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer, co-authors of The Progress Principle (look under my book reviews, in the category list to the right), recently published a useful blog post on innovation and creativity for the Harvard Business Review blog.

I've been writing a bit about innovation recently--if not directly, then indirectly. Innovation in schools is challenging, there's no doubt about it. Everyone has to be involved, and impediments (i.e. too many parameters and rules) have to be removed, if it is to flourish.

Amabile and Kramer focus on the issue of innovation through the lens of management, which is a structure we usually identify as anathema to innovation--or, at the very least, some sort of impediment to it. As the authors say, however, "You really can manage for innovation, but it starts by knowing what drives creativity in people who generate and develop the new ideas that, when implemented, will become tomorrow's innovations." This phrase should garner the attention of school leaders.

They identify four factors that savvy managers can balance in order to motivate creativity and innovation:

1. Goals -- strategic direction toward a worthy purpose, neither too loose nor too constrained. "Intrinsic motivation and creativity wither when people are told exactly what to do and how to do it; they need the autonomy to apply their own specific skills and talents."
2. Evaluation -- the crucial balance here involves "a great deal of frequent, work-focused evaluation and feedback that is truly informative and constructive. Ideally, these evaluations involve peers (as well as supervisors) openly discussing the work. To perform at their creative peak, people need to know that every idea will be respected enough to merit thoughtful consideration." In other words, strong evaluation pressure doesn't work, and neither does loose evaluation. "The best managers [...] accepted [...] failures as a necessary part of doing creative work and helped employees search for lessons and opportunities in those failures."
3. Reward -- "Creativity flourishes when employees know that rewards and recognition will follow from good, creative efforts--without being told constantly about exactly which rewards will follow from which actions. [...] Some of the most positive rewards are not monetary." One person they interviewed stated that, "part of the reward is having your managers listen to what you have done. Having access to your supervisors increases internal motivation, so managers should be available on an informal basis."
4. Pressure -- "Having the positive pressure of an optimally challenging assignment--being given an important problem to solve that no one else has been able to crack--can supercharge intrinsic motivation and creativity." Conversely, being told to do a particular job "in a particular way, with no tolerance of failure, little expectation of recognition for success, and extreme, arbitrary time pressure, can kill anyone's creativity motivation."

Of course, this is all lovely, in theory. In practice, how does it work in the real world, boots-on-the-ground in schools? This approach would work well in a number of schools I'm familiar with, but I also know of schools where the management culture would never be open to this kind of management (and the teachers know it).

Another important question: for the Head of School to manage in this way, how would the relationship between Head and Board Chair (+ entire board) need to look? Is there spill-over into governance, inasmuch as this is an internal management issue? For a Board that is not accustomed to having a Head exercise this kind of management approach inside the school, how might the Head educate the Board on its worth?

Goading the Stodgy Middle

Excellent article on talent in the April 17 (2012) edition of the Financial Times. Philip Delves Broughton is brave enough to call out what so many managers are afraid to admit in public: "managers spend more time managing mediocrity than they do searching for excellence" (10).

In independent schools, we are obsessed (rightly so) with the notion of excellence, but as Broughton points out, "it is a mathematical fact that most of us are average. [...] Our managers, who are mostly thoroughly average themselves, know it. And those below us in the pecking order certainly know it." Doubtless these are inlammatory words to some, yet I submit that it is worth forcing one's self to read the remainder of his column. At the very least, it can serve as a "check" for our thinking.

Regardless of the independent school gathering/conference, we tend to hear the same message: it is important to attract, develop, and manage top talent. We prattle on about how everyone can be innovative and creative, dull or brilliant, and still be an A-player, to use a known mantra of excellence (10). However, Broughton proffers, "most management involves goading the stodgy middle."

Can everyone be innovative and/or creative, however? Broughton cites none other than Clayton Christensen, the guru of innovation at Harvard, who, in a recent issue of Harvard's alumni magazine, states, "I think about 40 per cent of people just are not going to be good at innovating regardless of what they do." Furthermore, he adds that [only] "5 per cent are born with the instinct," which leaves some 55% who comprise the stodgy middle, i.e. who could learn to be innovative, if led properly.

Broughton goes on to draw a parallel between the 40% who won't be good at innovating and the stodgy middle of any group that is faced with change: "you are never going to change them." Yes, you might choose to invest plenty of resources in these folks (think: professional development), but it becomes a manager's job to find a place where these folks can be useful within the organization. Broughton says that "managing the middle is best done with what might be called the Serenity approach, after the prayer [...] "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change / Courage to change the things and I can / and wisdom to know the difference."

He does underscore, though that the 55% of folks, the middle, is indispensable. Organizations need them.

So, I pose a question to readers: in regards to the "middlers," do they benefit from better management or from better leadership? Should Broughton have explored the notion of leadership in addition to management? Other thoughts? I will publish your remarks in the "comments" section.

News Flash: Online Learning is Mainstream

Can we please stop talking about online learning as if it's something new?

At this point (April 2012), online learning is not innovative, as a concept. There might be inventive ways of handling teaching and learning via the digital medium, but we've long since passed the stage where we could label it "innovative." The first online class for higher education was offered over twenty years ago (University of Phoenix), and public schools began using online coursework around fifteen years ago.

Online learning is decidedly mainstream. It is a viable option, there are quality providers (and those that lack quality), and there are different methods involved with the classes.

Independent schools are still trying to determine whether to award credit for online courses, whether to allow online courses when the same face-to-face courses exist already, whether the quality is as good as what an independent school would expect normally within its walls, and so forth.

But it's not innovative any longer. Rather, it's a question of to what degree a school will assimilate online coursework into its repertoire of course offerings.

Therefore, when we look at the "growth curve" for online learning, we need to understand that this curve shows the degree to which online options are offered and taken; it is not showing any degree of innovation. This is an adoption curve, not an innovation curve.

From this point on, any "growth" in the online learning market place is akin to "growth" in a mature industry. Consider Coca-Cola, IBM, 3M, and so forth: they are still trying to grow, but their growth is incremental because many of their products are already mature. To be sure, they put much time and money into their R&D departments in order to innovate, and these products do produce growth, but the "growth" of their core products tends to occur as a result of adoption in new markets.

Online learning--a core product of the world of teaching and learning--has a place in independent schools. That should be self-evident by this point, and we should stop saying "Wow! Look at the shine on that!" everytime we hear someone talk about it. We will spend (waste?) the next three to five years figuring this out, then realize that we've been smitten so much by online learning that we've forgotten to pay attention to other innovations. Schools won't have money to invest in creating/seeking innovative products that enhance teaching and learning because we will have been so busy implementing "innovative" online learning...that is now entering its third decade of existence.

Third decade?! That sounds as if we're behind the curve. Not in front of it; not riding the crest of the wave. Behind.

Likeliest Organizational Changes in Education in Next 3-5 years

One of the things I love to do is to read what industries other than education are doing to advance themselves, as industries. The November 2011 issue of McKinsey Quarterly features an article entitled, "How social technologies are extending the organization." In that article, the authors undertake a deep dive into their data, gathered by over 4,000 respondents; their findings are meant to correlate with the degree of social media usage within the industry.

One of the most interesting data pieces deals with "likeliest organizational changes in next 3-5 years, without constraints." This post is not about prognosticating what technological developments will occur; rather, it's meant to be more holistic, in the sense of looking at an entire organizational system.

Here are top five (i.e., most likely), in descending order of likelihood:

1. The boundaries between employees, vendors, and customers will blur
2. Teams will self-organize
3. Decisions will be based primarily on data rather than opinion/experience
4. The organization's formal hierarchy will become much flatter or disappear altogether
5. Data used for decision-making will mostly be collected through experiments

Here are the bottom five (i.e., least likely), in descending order of likehlihood:

1. Individual performance will be evaluated by peers rather than by managers
2. Employees will have much more discretion in choosing which tasks to work on
3. Employees will play a much greater role in selecting leaders
4. Large companies and/or business units will disaggregate
5. Compensation decisions will be made by peers rather than by managers

Do these likelihoods have any corollation in schools? I think the answer is "partially." Following are some thoughts:

1. Teams will self-organize, if teachers and administrators become more savvy with social media
2. Decisions will be made on the examination of data, if we learn which data to collect and how to analyze them
3. The formal hierarchy of schools will become much flatter...highly unlikely. Perhaps they will become more complex first, then flex to a flatter model.
4. Data used for decision-making will mostly be collected through experiments...only if "bold schools" (as Will Richardson calls them) are willing to be intentionally experimental.
5. Individual performance will be evaluated by peers rather than managers...no, managers will continue to have a place, but more peers may be incorporated by those "bold schools".
6. Large business units (think: divisions) will disaggregate...highly unlikely, although there may be a "bold school" that is willing to experiment with boundary-less divisions. 

What do readers think about these data points from McKinsey? Please post a comment with your thoughts.

Anticipating Reality

The skill of anticipating should not go unnoticed in leadership circles. What does the anticipatory leader do? S/he gets folks to look at what's going on right now (i.e. the present) rather than prognosticate. Then, the leader asks a simple question, "Based on what we know right now, relative to what we're doing right now, what are the consequences for us, as an institution?"

It is up to the leader to pose such a question, but, when you think about it, his/her leadership team needs to be a bunch of top-notch "noticers", meaning that they need to be able to read reality with great clarity.

 

Lying and Leadership

We stress to our students that it's important not to lie, that they should endeavor to tell the truth at all times.

Why, then, do leaders lie? To me, this is a fascinating topic.

The Q2.2102 issue of Briefings on Talent & Leadership tackles this question in a fascinating read, "Why Leaders Lie." I read it on my outbound flight to the 2012 NAIS Annual Conference in Seattle last week, and it has been very much on my mind. "When I get five minutes, I'll write a blog post on it," I kept telling myself. My five minutes are here, it would seem.

Article author David Berreby brings the reader into the world of "little white lies" (and some big ones) by highlighting the Cuban missile crisis; specifically, he underscores the public side of the equation (that the USSR would withdraw its missiles from Cuba) versus the private side (that the USA would remove its missiles from bases in Turkey, on the Soviet border). "The Soviets agreed, and Kennedy, when asked if he'd made the missiles-for-missiles trade, lied and said no" (28). He then adds, "Like other forms of deception, lying is a fact of life" (28).

He provides the old, familiar situation: "When a loved one asks, 'How do I look?', or 'It's a new recipe, do you like it?', frankness won't serve you, or anyone else, very well" (28). He soon comes to his assertion, "Leaders lie because leadership at times requires deception [...]. Part of the art of leadership is knowing when lies have to be told, and being able to distinguish those deceptions--the ones created for unselfish reasons--from the purely self-serving kind" (30). 

He underscores the different levels of deception. For example, "telling the truth but creating a false impression" (30). He cites an auction for a telecommunications company, in which the company reported that the bidding process was going very well (31). The truth was that the bidding process was happening, but the actual results were abysmal.

Then, there is the matter of always sticking to message, which may mean that a leader has to ignore questions s/he is asked, while responding with verbiage that you'd prefer to use instead (30).

Here are some questions, related to this issue:

(1) Would you call out a direct report in front of his/her peers? Is that a "best move"?

(2) In negotations, would you give away your reserve price before negotiations actually begin?

(3) With press releases related to downsizing, the usual tactic is to say that the person is pursuing other opportunities. Is that truth-telling?

What's your moral judgment on the following? During World War I, "British leaders told the public they were developing a water-delivery system on wheels for the troops in the trenches. They chose deception in order not to give away their real plans to the enemy. Should they instead have told the truth about the new weapon, thus endangering their own soldiers and their nation's interests?" (30-31).

One of the most useful pearls to take away from Berreby's piece is this: one would surmise that, when one leader talks with another leader, the lies would fly. In fact, the opposite is true. When leaders speak 1:1, the result is an amazing level of truth-telling. That study was done by John J. Mearsheimer at U. Chicago. The other piece of his study, however, is notable: leaders may not lie to other leaders, but to whom do the lie the most often? To their own people; to those who trust them.

Let us not forget Plato's "noble lie," either. "The noble lie emerges from a situation where the truth, while not fatal, would nonetheless lead to worse outcomes than would a well-chosen falsehood" (31). Think of the earlier Kennedy situation.

So, friends, I ask you to comment on this post, as it is intended to bring us all into an uncomfortable zone. What else, in terms of circumstances, etc, provides a more "permissive" approach to spinning some details other than the true ones?

Let's Wait for Someone Else

Even though I am aware of the conservative nature of the vast majority of independent schools, I continue to be amazed every time opportunity knocks, only to hear schools say, "Let's wait for someone else to do it first."

 No one wants to make mistakes. "Measure twice, cut once" is the mentality. But what if you're measuring something new? How do you know precisely when to cut it?

The latest issue of Independent School magazine is chock-full of thoughts on innovation and design-thinking, and the 2012 NAIS Annual Conference is themed around the same. However, my guess is that the actual percentage of schools doing this kind of work is small. We love to talk about ideas, but, as for moving from talk toward action...we have far to go.

Cursory observation: looking through the Annual Conference catalog and through the current issue of IS magazine, the number of schools actually doing something is around 20. What's the NAIS membership? Around 1,500 schools (not counting organizations and related). A quick calculation suggests that the "doers" amount to some 1.3% of NAIS schools.

Some readers may clamor that my numbers are faulty. Fine. Let's augment the number to 100. One hundred schools that are actually doing 'innovative work.' That's 6.7% of NAIS schools.

We're still waiting for someone else to do it.

But...how do we kickstart ourselves?