Introit

Resilience More Important Than Brilliance

Luke Johnson's column in yesterday's Financial Times (6 November 2013) focused on the need for founders (of an enterprise) to apply grit in order to find success, when the going gets tough. After all, as Johnson says, "On certain days business can feel like a war of attrition. [...] It could be argued that struggle is at the heart of enterprise." He goes on to state that "any entrepreneur should be good at coping with the stress that inevitably arises from such conflict and striving."

In schools, I'm sure that, if asked, we could provide a kind of Top 10 list of the most stressful events we could imagine. As a matter of fact, it would prove a most instructive exercise, I'm sure -- it would make us realize that no one would be able to take time off during a time of high stress because of fatigue. And that matters.

Although Johnson is talking about entrepreneurs specifically, I think that his advice applies to those of us in independent schools as well: "Resilience in an entrepreneur is more important than brilliance--grit trumps almost every other trait."

Well said.

Networking and Innovation

I've been thinking recently about idea networks and knowledge networks.

An idea network is not the same as a knowledge network. A knowledge network is more akin to a knowledge center, a repository of items that folks wish to search with the intent of finding hard data/info that can be used. It be social, also, because that approach may be useful in locating or identifying existing knowledge. By contrast, an idea network is more of a community consultation space that facilitates/encourages connection and dialogue among people of diverse backgrounds and experiences who are looking to test an idea that they might have or to listen for weak signals to determine what ideas are beginning to take shape. There is a place for both networks, but they really serve different purposes.

I'm interested in idea networks because I'm interested in school cultures, especially schools that are trying to align their cultures for innovation. That's really the hard part, isn't it? Talking about innovation and intentionally aligning one's school culture for innovation are different things altogether.

If they're serious about innovation, one of the first questions that TTAFI (pronounced "taffy", trying-to-align-for-innovation) schools ought to wrestle with is where they will source their ideas.

You may be thinking that the raison d'être of innovative schools is to produce ideas in-house. Not really. There's a difference between being an inventive school and an innovative school. An inventive school is one that first discovers or happens upon an idea (process, product, etc.) while an innovative school first brings that invention into practice in a way that has societal impact.

So, if you're a TTAFI school, you could produce ideas in-house...and be limited by it because you're not engaged in the work of innovation, but invention. What you do with it--the action stage--is what defines an innovative school. And it's easier to get to the action stage if your school espouses idea networking.

For example, if you're a TTAFI school, have you considered what percentage of your innovative ideas (as opposed to inventions) you'd like to see come from internal sources and/or external sources? If you're truly interested in being innovative, it would make sense to allow the external sourcing of many of these ideas, in the spirit of "open innovation." After all, do you want to spend the time inventing something or putting it into action, creating impact that is societal (whether within your own community or in an even greater context)? Again, that's the difference between an inventive school and an innovative school: impact.

All of that brings me to this question: if you're a TTAFI school or a self-professed "innovative school," is your professional development program reflective of an idea network? Or is it more of a closed-circuit knowledge center? Consider the cultural difference(s).

The Pathology of Strategic

The phrase "strategic thinker" always makes me smile. Sample question: "Is [enter name here] a strategic thinker?"

I wonder what it means?

Let me reword that. I wonder what people perceive it to mean?

To me, the act of inserting the adjective "strategic" is a pathology, and it's rather rampant in educational circles. We delude ourselves into believing that the insertion somehow alters the state of being of the noun itself, elevating it to some new plane of existence. Strategic thinker. Strategic plan. Strategic management. Strategic staffing.

Someone who is designated a thinker is someone who has a very well-developed faculty for thinking, i.e. for employing his/her mind objectively and rationally when it comes to evaluating something. Isn't that profound enough in and of itself? What a compliment! So-and-so is a thinker. Bravo!

But strategic thinker? What does that mean, exactly? Does it mean that the person thinks in ways that provide him/her with competitive advantage over another thinker? Or does it mean that the person thinks about strategy, generally speaking? And if so, what kind of strategy -- good strategy or bad strategy? We don't even have a good understanding of what strategy is, yet we are audacious enough to utilize the adjectival form as a moniker of distinction?

Scarf It Down!

We're all faced with the perennial question of how we might motivate others in our schools. In a recent interview with Karen Christensen (Rotman Magazine, Spring 2013), David Rock, founder of the NeuroLeadership Institute, shares that "they key is to create an atmosphere that promotes Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness. We call this the SCARF model." I find the model worthwhile because so many independent schools are positioned to implement it; some already do, without knowing it.

• Status - "Within the brain, feelings of low status actually provoke the kind of cortisol elevation associated with sleep deprivation and chronic anxiety. [...] One common threat is the custom of offering feedback. The mere phrase 'Can I give you some advice?' puts people on the defensive, because they perceive the person offering advice as claiming superiority. Inside your brain, it is the cortisol equivalent of hearing footsteps in the dark." (30-31)
• Certainty - We crave it. "At work, not knowing what will happen next can be profoundly debilitating, because it requires extra neural energy, which can undermine performance and disengage people from the present. Breaking a complex project down into small steps can help to create a feeling of certainty. Although it's highly unlikely that everything will go as planned, people will function better because the project now seems less ambiguous." (31)
• Autonomy - "As long as people feel they can execute their own decisions without much oversight, stress will remain under control. [...] A perception of reduced autonomy--for example, when someone is being micromanaged--can easily generate a threat response. When an employee experiences a lack of control, his or her perception of uncertainty is aroused, further raising stress levels." (31)
• Relatedness - "In the brain, the ability to feel trust and empathy about others is shaped by whether they are perceived to be part of the same social group. [...] In terms of workplace implications, this means that teams of diverse people cannot simply be thrown together. They must be deliberately assembled in a way that minimizes the potential for threat responses to arise." (31)
• Fairness - "The perception that an even has been 'unfair' generates a strong response in the limbic system, stirring hostility and undermining trust. The cognitive need for fairness is so strong that some people are willing to [...] commit themselves to an organization they recognize as fair." (31) In terms of an example of a threat, "the 'old boys' network provides an egregious example: those who are not a part of it always perceive their organization as fundamentally unfair, no matter how many mentoring programs are put in place." (31)

The reason why I find this SCARF model so interesting is because, when people experience a rewarding SCARF system, they are considered to be deeply engaged.  Engagement is challenging to measure, but, aided by the SCARF model, I am certain that we could devise a way to measure it through a fairly straightforward survey that would provide us with some constructive/useful data points.

In this climate, not only do we want to see students who are deeply engaged, we want/need to see faculty, staff, and leaders who are deeply engaged. Success in this realm will beget success.

Are you deeply engaged?

Making the Case for Investing in a Learning Culture

Poignant piece in Chief Learning Officer magazine (online version) today. The topic is talent development + learning, and the excerpt is below (it's "business-y" in terms of feel, but the principles apply to schools). Of particular interest to me is the second paragraph. In order to be impactful vis-à-vis strategy, though, schools would benefit from a greater number of folks with broad experience rather than siloed experience. Otherwise, how does a school anticipate needs in the various areas? Professional development shouldn't be just about faculty, it should be about all adult learners in the community...and that would look fairly different from most models today.

One of the most important factors in building the workforce of the future is how organizations develop and train the skills needed in the workplace. This goes beyond formal training and learning; it extends to how to build a learning culture, learning on the job and using technology to deliver embedded learning experiences. In this context, the critical role of learning and development professionals in driving impactful learning strategies becomes clearer.

To increase impact, learning leaders need to understand future business strategy and skills needs. Learning leaders need to up their game in understanding and measuring the impact of learning on performance outcomes, so that they can make the strategic business case for investment in learning programs, tools and capabilities.

 

Leadership Lesson at the Y

Recently, I started to participate in spinning classes at my local YMCA. I've always been a fan of bicycle racing, especially the Tour de France, because, to me, there is much to be learned about leadership when it comes to cycling.

I've discovered these leadership lessons exist even in spinning classes at the Y! For those unfamiliar with such classes, imagine a room full of stationary bikes with an instructor seated on his/her own bike in front of the group, where s/he can control the music, ventilation, and encourage participants by means of a portable microphone. It's a serious calorie burn!

It's funny how leadership can exist in so many forms. In this case, what I'm thinking of is the spinning instructors. Each has her (in this case, I've only had female instructors) own "spin" on the workout; each one is a leader. Yet, in paying attention to myself (i.e. how I react to the workout, including how I feel afterward), I've noticed that certain instructors affect me more deeply than others.

For each instructor (leader), I do the work, but 'doing the work' doesn't mean that I'm satisfied or that I feel nourished after the workout. For me, I perform better and feel more nourished when I'm with an instructor who lays out the vision for the course before we begin, then narrates along the way, allowing my imagination to construct the mental course -- hills, trying to outrun dogs, etc. I perform well, but not at my best, when I have an instructor who is very methodical and "correct' about leading the class, but who doesn't provide me with an opportunity to flex my imaginative muscles as much.

In other words, I've noticed that, for me, vision (and constantly keeping me focused on that vision) invigorates me during the ride, makes me notice the work a bit less, and gives me a real sense of communal (as well as individual) accomplishment when we finish the 'ride.'

It made me think about school leadership. There are leaders, then there are leaders. The first group includes those who do things 'by the book,' meaning that they do things well, operations are solid, and the school functions nicely. It's a good group. The second group, though, comprises leaders who are visionary and inspirational; they keep everyone 'pumped' and stretching for a goal. Everyone who works with such leaders feels jazzed about what they're doing and what the school is doing. The school doesn't just function nicely; it sings!

All this from spinning classes at the Y... Leadership is all around us. But do we always see it?

The Hardest Innovation

I'm a fan of Andrew Hill's "On Management" weekly column in the Financial Times. This morning, I was delighted to come across his piece on "the hardest innovation."

Q: What is the hardest innovation?

A: Killing off projects.

As anyone in schools knows, it is tremendoulsy challenging to sunset projects that really ought to fade away. Hill states that the struggle involved in persuading any company [school] to stop doing certain things is downright painful. We tend to use nice terms, such as "concentrate our focus" to refer to the notion of stopping a project. His point, quite simply, is that we cannot become more strategic by focusing more on something; an increased focus in one area means cleaning up another area and moving it off the radar screen entirely. Focus demands it.

I like one paragraph immensely:

"Why is it so hard for companies to kill off projects? Many leaders think it is more courageous to advance, expand and aquire than to retreat, shrink and divest. At a recent strategy meeting I attended, executives' warm enthusiasm for new ventures was inversely proportional to the chill and doublespeak that filled the room when they were challenged to take the axe to longstanding initiatives. [...] Yet when organizations stop to scrutinize themselves, the accretion of unheeded strategy visions they find hanging around them is extraordinary." [emphasis mine]

Strategy is very much about choice, in other words.

Does your school avoid the hard work of choice?

Innovator's Paradox and Schools

Scott Anthony's work in innovation interests me very much. Recently, I've been pondering the notion of "the innovator's paradox," which goes something like this: when they are in a position to innovate, most organizations don't; then, when they find themselves needing to innovate, they cannot do it.

Some schools got slammed by the financial crisis | economic downturn; others have continued to muddle along, with a slight decline in enrollment. There is a third group, as well: those schools that have either maintained their enrollment or grown it during the last few years (call it a flight to quality).

A few schools in the latter group have begun to talk about innovation, but are trying to figure out how to do it. Others in the same group are eschewing innovation altogther; why bother if we're doing just fine?

I'm wondering how many schools in this group might find themselves stuck in the innovator's paradox in the next two to four years: "We had a chance to innovate, and didn't. Now that we have to (i.e. enrollment is on the cusp of slipping), we're finding it terribly difficult to do."

I like Anthony's idea of writing a Pre-Mortem: a letter to yourself (i.e. the school), highlighting how things have unfolded over the next five years. Then, use that as a way of defining a strategy for what you might undertake within the school in order to avoid that scenario (i.e. the result of having done nothing when you could have...).

With the continued explosion of "free" educational options, how do schools NOT engage in wondering "how might we....?"

Tired of Producing Scholars

I don't know about you, but I'm so tired of "producing scholars." I think it's a terribly trite phrase, and I don't think it's what we ought to strive to "produce" in schools.

Mind you, I happen to be a scholar of medieval religious theater in (what are today) France and Germany, specifically during the 15th century, and even more specifically in plays that deal with soteriology and the notion of the devil's rights. That's what being a scholar is about: undertaking studies in a special field. It has another meaning, related closely to the original Latin, that is the equivalent to the word "pupil." Clearly, then, any child in our schools qualifies as a "scholar." He or she is a pupil, plain and simple.

Are schools places that are supposed to produce scholars? Really?! Experts in late-medieval religious theater with a soteriological bent? I use that as an example, but consider it this way: is it our goal to produce university-level subject specialists that revel in esoterica, even if the esoterica do advance human knowledge? Unlikely. Some learners are called to be scholars, but that's just one career choice (or 'way of life') among many.

For my part, I would hope that we strive to graduate students who are considered creative intellectuals, i.e. informed, well-rounded citizens who are able to use their intellects in creative ways to tackle and solve issues, with an eye to moral and ethical impact of decision-making.

But please, no more emphasis on the singular goal of producing scholars...

Muting the Hippos

I found a term in the October 2012 issue (p. 65) of the Harvard Business Review that I just love -- one that I want to make use of, if I can just remember to do it!

HiPPO -- the Highest Paid Person's Opinion

The term is mentioned in an article dealing with management having to make sense of big data. Toward the end of the article, the authors talk about a new culture of decision making in a section called 'muting the HiPPOs':

"One of the most critical aspects of big data is its impact on how decisions are made and who gets to make them. When data are scarce, expensive to obtain, or not available in digital form, it makes sense to let well-placed people make decisions, which they do on the basis of experience they've built up and patterns and relationships they've observed and internalized. [...] For particularly important decisions, these people are typically high up in the organization, or they're expensive outsiders brought in because of their expertise and track records. Many in the big data community maintain that companies often make most of their important decisions by relying on HiPPOs. [...] But we believe that throughout the business world today, people rely too much on experience and intuition and not enough on data."

They go on to tout the merits of data-driven companies, and, admittedly, they do have a strong argument, even if the argument might feel a bit odd for schools, since we so rarely talk about data.

So, to return to my new favorite term...can you identify the HiPPOs in your school? Do you ever feel like muting them?!