View Steve Taffee's profile
Being Smart and Nice Can Sometimes Work Against Change
Posted by sjtaffee on October 13, 2009
Continuing with my blog series on change and schools inspired by Robert Evans The Human Side of School Change, I want to dive into two aspects of schools which I think can sometimes make it very difficult for them to change.
The first is that schools are often very full of smart adults. Smart leaders recognize that “tapping into the wisdom of the group” is a wonderful way to generate superior ideas, leverage creative problem solving, uncover hidden barriers and unintended consequences, enlist group buy-in and support… The list of positives goes on and on. As Evans says, “Most educational reformers see traditional school leadership, epitomized by the administrative bureaucracy, as disenfranchising teachers…, forcing them into conformity and isolation, depriving the school of their wisdom and creativity, and denying them the chance for professional growth.”
Analysis-Paralysis
So the definite trend in schools is towards more participator decision-making. But here’s the rub. Sometimes the decisions don’t get made, they just get talked about. It’s the well-known enemy of change: analysis-paralysis, or AP. (I recognize the irony of calling this AP. See a previous post on the other type of APs!)
Faculty put the “independent” in independent schools. They are smart, opinionated, articulate, and ready to argue the merits of a proposal. Sometimes these arguments take place in a meeting, but too often they take place in “other” meetings—hallway conversations, over lunch, or outside of school. Which brings us to a second challenge in schools:
Most teachers don’t know how to constructively confront one another.
Teachers tend to be harmonizers, the like things running smoothly, with public conflict kept to a minimum. Conflict is seen by some as an act of disloyalty to the unstated code of conduct that says that we all need to get along with one another, and that means not disagreeing with one another. At least not in public, or very strongly, or emotionally. Arguing with one another is bad. Raised voices are a source of shame.
In the 1970’s, assertiveness training was all the rage. People learned about passive behavior, aggressive behavior, and assertive behavior. I don’t think the lesson stuck for many of us. I find that many teachers are passive/aggressive: not voicing complaint about changes publicly, but sabotaging efforts to change covertly. Sometime I suspect that certain people will use the tendency to want to over analyze a situation to by time to keep the change from happening, hoping it will simply go away as proponents lose steam or get put on other projects. And you know what? Sometimes it works.
Evans quotes a middle school principal as saying “Our collegiality train has left the station, but it has many cabooses.” I love that phrase, even as I hate that reality.
On those occasions when conflict comes into the open, school leaders tend to look for win-win scenarios. Evans extols the virtues of “principled bargaining” (attributed to Fisher and Ury), “which separates the people from the problem…, focuses on interests, not positions,… invents options for mutual gain…, and insists on objective criteria.” Very difficult to pull off, in my view, unless a school invests time in what Peter Senge calls “personal mastery” skills, skills which start with people knowing who they are, being comfortable (but not smugly so) in their skin. This requires a level of maturity and self-knowing that many adults struggle to consistently manifest, especially when certain issues touch a “hot button.”
Evans concludes his chapter, “Participation—Without Paralysis” with a powerful section on what I think of as “followership.” We spend a great deal of time talking about leadership theory, but who are leaders without followers? Not lemming-like followers, but engaged colleagues who understand their roles and that of the leader. As Evans says, “…organizations ne3ed and like to be led–not bossed, led.” He continues to describe six ways to build optimal participation:
- Clarity in decision-making. Is the decision already made? Are we looking for consensus? Input only? Are we taking a vote? Who is doing what?
- Informal outreach instead of formal structure. Why create a committee when a few conversations will do?
- Distributing leadership skills throughout the organization. Not simply insurance in case the leader is hit by a bus, but a way to help everyone become better leaders and followers as the need may be.
- Adaptable improvement plans. Whoever had an ide that was perfect from the get-go?
- Understanding and accepting that change means conflict. Conflict is normal. Get over it, then get with it.
- Regularly checking in with stake holders and asking “how are we doing,” thereby building collaboration between the leader and followers.
Next post will likely wrap up my thoughts about Evans and The Human Side of School Change.
October 14th, 2009 at 5:02 am
I am really enjoying this series of posts. I’m particularly interested in this:
“Most teachers don’t know how to constructively confront one another.”
I think this is true among educational researchers, as well. They either ignore each other and settle comfortably into their separate theoretical camps or blow up at each other so often that someone has to leave. Neither approach does anybody any good.
[Reply]
sjtaffee Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Thanks, Jenna. Perhaps this is true in all professions. And perhaps this is a skill that we should be teaching our students, but it would be hard to do without first mastering it ourselves.
In one sense, we do ask our students to “question authority,” but it’s always some other authority, not that of the teacher!
s
[Reply]