Introit

Centenarians and Schools

My great-aunt passed away last week at the age of 100. Quite a remarkable woman. She gave up driving at 98, and she had all her faculties about her until the last month or two, when they began to slip, even though her long-term memory remained as sharp as a tack.

Driving home from the funeral service last evening, I couldn't help but marvel at her life span, and what that meant for organizations to which she was attached. For example, she was a member of the same church for 100 years. That meant that she remembered when the preaching changed from German to English, among myriad other changes and evolutions.

100 years with the same organization! Of course, that got me thinking about centenarians and schools. Those folks who are around 100 years old right now have been around longer than the majority of independent schools in the United States. Imagine being able to tap into someone who has 100 years (more or less) with your school...wouldn't that be (potentially) powerful? One wonders what stories they might share, what changes they agreed (and disagreed) with, how many heads of school they might have seen pass through the school, not to mention how many school sites they might have seen (starting out in one location, moving to another, then building a third, etc.). Their testimony to the life of a school would be noteworthy. One hopes that development offices and heads are making connections with these folks, helping to fill in the "story of the school."

In contemplating my great-aunt's life, I had to marvel at her capacity for patience and perspicacity, meaning that I admired how she was able to weather change beautifully, always considering the good that would come in the long-term. In that sense, she is a model for boards of trustees, whose focal point should be on the "school-that-is-becoming..." That sense of duty toward an institution is what separates successful schools from failing ones: patience and perspicacity help to steer the ship on a steady course.

When Enough is Enough

Last winter brought some light flurries to Independent School Land, but it was no snowstorm. Permit me to elaborate: the flurries were school closures in the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. I'm not minimizing these closures by calling them "flurries"; however, what I am suggesting is that they might represent the calm before the snowstorm: a more significant number of closures.

What we're experiencing now, in terms of an economy that is tepid at best (not to mention jobless), is as real as it gets. This is the new normal, for the foreseeable future.

We all know independent schools that have suffered greatly as a result of the financial crisis and its lasting effects. For some, these past two years have served to bring together frayed strands within the school, leading to a unity of purpose and mission; these schools will weather the crisis. In the end, they will be survivors, though perhaps tarnished in some respects: down, but not out. For others, however, these past two years have served to precipitate a decline that was inevitable, as these schools were poorly managed on all fronts, from the board through the administration and into the faculty and staff. Finances were treated loosely, things were put off until tomorrow (think deferred maintenance, professional development, replenishment of course materials, technology infrastructure...), and the boards spent no time (or precious little) learning about their responsibilities. The result, a tremendously weakened school, is the logical result. Imagine trying to pick up the pieces at this point... Blame will be assigned everywhere, usually to those who are no longer present, when what is needed is a mirror.

When is enough, enough?

What will it take in these tense times to make such schools realize that the best thing for the school community may be for the school to end its run? How long can schools rob Peter to pay Paul? Vendor relationships will be the first to go; faculty/staff casualties will happen along the way, although a few will hang on, hoping for some sort of miracle from on high, even when their benefits are eliminated entirely and they're teaching 30 kids in a section; they will cling to the thread of hope that somehow, some way, the school will find its footing again, enrollment will grow dramatically, and all will be right with the world. Families, of course, will sense this discord immediately and begin to withdraw, either at the end of the current year, or perhaps immediately (be ready for those mid-year transfers).

My worry for those schools who actually possess the wherewithal to determine that "enough is enough" is that they'll decide "enough is enough" in mid-May, at that last board meeting of the year. After the bulk of the admission season is over. After they have re-enrollment contracts from a dwindling number of families. After they've downsized the faculty and staff...again. After they have eliminated yet more (if not all) benefits. After teachers have signed contracts for the next school year. After families have already begun to pay tuition for the next year...and the school has already begun to spend it in the current year, violating the confidence and trust that those families have in the school. After the school can no longer place the vast majority of its students in other independent schools, since their admission season has all but closed. After the school has sucked out the very marrow of life of those in its employ.

So I ask again: when is enough, enough?

Uncovering the Soul

All independent schools have souls, but, as independent school folks, we cannot pinpoint exactly when and where "ensoulment" happened in a given school, even our own. Suffice it to say that somewhere along the way, ensoulment occurred, and it now serves as a marker of each school.

The point of thinking about the soul of a school has nothing to do with trying to identify the precise moment of ensoulment, but represents instead a process of uncovering the soul, of lifting the cover in order to reconnoiter a bit, looking for those hard-to-define pieces of school life and culture that contribute to the school's soul.

If you were to give an assignment to your school's senior class to uncover the soul of your school, what would that project look like? Where would the student go? Whom would they question, and what questions would they ask? Here's a bigger question: are students today, i.e. those about to graduate our fine institutions, prepared to handle this kind of assignment? I think they are, but I also think this kind of question represents a prime opportunity for us to assess whether they've been able to synthesize everything they have learned. If we were to create teams of, say, five students, and give them this assignment ("Uncover the soul of your school"), would they be able to 1) tackle the question by cross-referencing disciplines and "the abstract" in their minds and 2) coordinate the team appropriately? Also, how much time would we give them? One week? More? Is it a year-long project? What would we expect as the final product? A video? A paper? A dynamic presentation allowing for multiple inputs and media choices?

How might a faculty member or an administrative leader go about uncovering the soul of the school, especially if that person is new to the community?

Is it easy to "see the soul" at your school?

Recognizing Misalignment

Schools are organizations that have a particular design; sometimes that design works well, and at times it does not. The financial crisis represents a sad example of what can happen when alignment--the "strategic and programmatic agreement" within an organization that runs from the top to the bottom, from ideation to performance--fails. Given that we have a very recent example of what can happen when there is misalignment, what are we doing to ensure full alignment, going forward?

At a time when reset and redefinition have become the norm of the world around us, we need to provide certainty to our students and their families, as well as to prospective families. That is very much about alignment.

If you recognize misalignment within your school, what will you do about it? Do you--faculty member, staff member, mid-level administrator, division head, head--have the perceived luxury of ignoring the misalignment? What are the consequences to ignoring it? How do you move toward re-alignment?

The Book is Here!

De rebus scholaribus ("On School Matters") is now available for purchase!

"Independent schools are semi-sacred spaces of intrigue, action, and innovation. Yet they can be loci of drudgery, strongholds of status quo, and crucibles of hostility toward change. Culturally interesting, they command our attention and pique our curiosity. They are dramatic and complex. They are also home to generations of "school folks" who have labored to instill respect and admiration for a vie formative that is family-oriented, highly personal, and advocates the Renaissance ideal of the honnete homme as an educational model. This volume introduces readers to thoughts, insights, and critiques of independent schools as they adapt to the twenty-first century."

ORDER NOW!

Click here to order from Amazon

Click here to order from Xlibris

Espoused or In-Action?

Schools, like other organizations, have two kinds of rules:

1. espoused

2. in-action

Espoused rules are the ones that we claim we do; we tout them to parents, alumni, students...to everyone. "At our school, all students do x,y, or z." "At our school, we abide by a strict honor code." "At our school, all students--regardless of race, gender, [etc.]--are treated equally." "At our school, all students are encouraged to learn from failure." And so on.

In-action rules, however, are what the real rules are on the ground, in the trenches. The schools whose in-action rules equal their espoused rules are phenomenal places, and there are many of them. There are also many schools whose in-action rules differ (sometimes profoundly) from their espoused rules.

Can you think of examples of schools where the in-action rules fly in the face of the espoused rules? I'm sure you can; we all can.

Of course, it's not just about rules; it's about the program, too. How many schools proclaim a program that "prepares students for the 21st century"? In reality, the kids still sit in industrial-era rows, learning information by rote memorization, while the teacher remains at the epicenter of the daily "learning experience." Where is the collaboration? Where is the "global learning"? Where is the infusion of technology...you know, the kind that permeates their life and that they're expected to master?

How does one change such a school culture? How does one integrate the espoused program with the in-action one?

Strategy Execution

How would your school deal with the following four elements of strategy execution? Specifically, if you were to map out your strategy, how would you vertically order the following areas? How are they linked, and how would you prioritize them? (They are not in any recommended order here)

• Execution capabilities

• Core objectives

• Competitive objectives

• Customer outcomes

For those familiar with curriculum design, the UbD (Understanding by Design) method can be used here. Where would UbD have schools begin? With customer outcomes. In other words, what can the school provide customers that will 1) make them content with the product, 2) keep them coming back, and 3) encourage them to spread positive word of mouth regarding the school? Begin with the end in mind, and work backward from there.

Historically, independent schools have been uncomfortable with the notion of customer outcomes as a/the primary driver of the business model, as it seems to suggest that schools are placating families by providing them with what they want, when they want it, which would mean that school curricula would be manipulated constantly.

Customer outcomes can be balanced by a focus on competitive objectives and core objectives. The former signifies how each school differs from its competitors, and the latter is synonymous with what we normally term "mission." Although the core objectives tend to remain fixed (we are who we are), competitive objectives should be in flux; their change allows schools to direct the change(s) that customers might like to see, while remaining true to core objectives. Competitive objectives need to be in flux; they represent the levers and dials that schools use to translate core objectives into customer outcomes. As technology progresses, for example, it changes our competitive objectives, or at least, it should change them. These objectives consist of new initiatives, upgrades, and so forth. To provide one example, increasing the leverage of social networks can increase the intimacy between school and "customer" (parents), a win-win for both parties, but it doesn't mean ignoring or changing our core objectives, our mission.

Execution capabilities are also important: these are the capabilities of those who are in-house--faculty, staff, administration. Do these folks bring to the table everything that is needed to keep the message of core objectives (the mission) fresh and meaningful to the customer, by means of competitive objectives?

How does your school come up with competitive objectives? Is it a board "think tank," is it the head alone, or are faculty and staff members encouraged to identify such objectives? If it's only the board or head, there will be a palpable "distance" between the board/head and faculty/staff, with the latter feeling as if the former doesn't understand what things are like in the trenches. In this case, there's work to be done on strategic alignment within the school, and much of that is cultural work. And that's perhaps the hardest work there is.

Leadership and Innovation

In the most recent issue of Briefings on Talent & Leadership by the Korn-Ferry Institute, Paul Hemp interviews Linda A. Hill, professor at Harvard Business School. The interview focuses on how organizational leadership can create an environment that produces sustainable innovation, which is key in today's turbulent, complex society. In particular, the issue becomes how to shepherd the geniuses inside an organization to produce that innovation.

Hill's conclusion is that "we have not paid enough attention to the kind of leadership needed to catalyze bold and value-creating innovation" (38).

She points out that "everyone in an organization--everyone--does indeed represent a slice of genius," but goes on to say that "not all slices are created equal of course" (40). The trick is to capitalize on the collective genius within the organization in such a way that creative talent is unleashed and harnessed simultaneously.

"Until companies rethink what innovation and leadership are all about, innovation will remain an unnatural act in many organizations. Instead of innovative communities, we'll continue to see what Gary Hamel calls creative apartheid, an environment in which a few gifted individuals are given responsibility for innovation, while other members [...] get on with the humdrum of conducting business" (41).

Part of her solution? Leadership from behind, rather than out front. This leader creates the context for innovation (rather than setting the direction), then leads like a shepherd behind the flock, who lets the nimble "go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind" (44), quoting Nelson Mandela.

Hill is quick to defend the notion of leadership, however, stating that "it's important to realize that leading from behind doesn't mean abrogating your leadership responsibilities. After all, the shepherd makes sure that the flock stays together. He uses his staff to nudge and prod if the flock strays too far off course or into danger" (44). Abrogating leadership would lead to breakdown, and that's not healthy for any organization.

Does your school have a "context for innovation"? How would you begin?

Brand You

Tom Peters is well-known for his focus on Brand You.

For independent schools, "you" has two concurrent meanings: 1) you, the individual and 2) you, the school/organization. We know that individual teachers have great impact on their students.

As a long-time teacher, I relish those moments when students reconnect with me and share the life lessons they learned in my classroom -- usually it's something related to French culture that they come to appreciate once they've managed to study abroad. It impacts them, and they reconnect mentally to their time in my classroom. You the Individual.

However, there's a second You that we cannot ignore: You the School. I may be an individual teacher, but I teach within a school community that has a mission and a philosophy. My own mission and philosophy cannot be so distinct from those of the school so as to preclude the school's work from being accomplished. Independent education functions best when You the Individual and You the School are a match; this synergy must be nurtured always.

So, when Peters talks about the importance of focusing on Brand You, independent schools should view it as an opportunity to nurture You the Individual, with the goal of orienting You the Individual toward You the School. For, when You the School wins, so too does everyone else.

The Complexity Gap

The "complexity gap", according to the IBM CEO study I highlighted in yesterday's post, represents the differential between how much complexity leaders are expecting to see over the next five years and how prepared they feel to handle that level of complexity.

79% of leaders expect high or very high levels of complexity over the next five years, while 49% say they feel prepared for this expected complexity.

The complexity gap, therefore, stands at 30%. That's not an insignificant percentage.

If this year's NAIS Annual Conference was a solid indicator, independent school leaders are experiencing this same phenomenon. However, if schools are not embodying creative leadership, busily reinventing customer relationships, and/or building operational dexterity to take advantage of the marketplace, what are they doing to address the complexity gap?

Following is a list of "food for thought". Some ideas are mine; some are drawn from the IBM study, but are just as relevant for our schools.

• Remaining insular is a short-term option, which may or may not lead to success
• Experimentation is now called for -- and not over five to ten years, but rather one to two years
• Ambiguity is here to stay, perhaps long-term
• Approaches to problems need to be original rather than traditional
• Strategy may need to be continuously re-conceived
• Disrupting the status quo will be necessary, in many cases
• Schools can't afford to become bogged down in uncertainty; execution of new/updated programs and projects will become the expected standard
• Culture change in schools, which has always been a challenge, simply has to occur
• Our business model is not absolute; it must adapt to the change that surrounds us

How will your school craft and recast itself as a creative organization, and how will you balance that need with school tradition and culture?