This will perhaps become a series of critic on initiatives in contemporary education. The criticism will reside in the fact that managers with analogue attitudes have hijacked the language of the digital revolution and have knowingly perverted them to maintain the previous non-progressive administration and pedagogies.
A post I made over on Wikinomics and a long-term concern has led me to ask:
What is the difference between structures and process?
What worries me is that as schools attempt to engage with the future, they seem to be clearing the decks by redesigning management structures to be ‘flat’; so as to encourage collaboration and knowledge creation. Subsequently the hierarchical structures of old are seen as counterproductive.
What really, really worries me is that old ‘skool’ hierarchical leaders have simply adopted the ‘sound bites’ of change and while redesigning management, simply rearrange people and still maintain previous command and control processes.
Flat verses tall management structures will move things in the right direction – but that is assuming information, power and choice is moving through those systems unmediated.
The annihilation or permanence of the learning revolution rest in the fact that we have to move in a system that evolves and is evaluated based on previous values.
The current generation of leaders and administers (gross generational generalisation – but we all know who I mean) because of their mind set are attracted to reform school structures. Structures are easy, assessable and visible things to changed. The ’change’ no matter how much it cost (fiscally and in ‘good will’) is comfortable for administrators, accountants and many parents.
The truth however is that people's status in the system can be squashed, their job description can change, they can go up or down (obviously not very far because management is flat), but unless the way they fundamentally work or interact with others evolves nothing will change.
Do people have examples like this? Where reform for the future has supposed occurred yet nothing has changed? How do we move past this? Structural change seems so popular, yet few people talk about process? Are we using the right set of criteria? Are we training our leaders in the right ways?
Structure is the pipes. Process is the water that runs through the pipes. We need water not pipes.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
False belief 1 - If I redesign my school's Structure then we're Future Proof
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
@Gilbert
As my school enters into a professional learning community model for the coming year it becomes quite evident that for real change to take place authority needs to be shared as well. One criticism of the DuFour model is the role of the administrator is often lost. So what is the proper balance for the principal. As the boss I'm ultimately responsible and you can't delegate away accountability.
The concept of accountability is the key to this transition.
In a hierarchical model accountability is top down and based on ‘a stick’ approach. In a collaborative model the ownership and distribution of authority is much more of ‘a carrot’ to evoke accountability (a personal responsibility) in those who participate.
If ‘we are what we share’ then we are all responsible. I am not so naive to think all participants will be equally motivated, willing to accept responsibility and/or altruistic. That said, an effective ‘wise crowd’ tend to be self-regulating and needs less intervention from leadership not more.
It is a challenge for leaders formed and successful in a hierarchical system to change and direct a process of creative collaboration and encouraging innovative social dynamics. The great leaders of the future will engage their teams in a solution creation focusing only on managing the process not the content or answer. If you have employed the right people and developed them and you want them to trust each other – then you must trust them.
The days of the ‘big man’ leader having all the answers are over, in fact the leader having any of the answers are over – The great future leader in education will not be the star quarter-back, striker or breakaway (depending on your code) they will be the coach or even the referee – ideas about accountability have to develop too.
In the face of boards/governors, parents and reticent staff who are less evolve I know it will take time – but if current leaders do not understand that they may have a propensity towards hierarchical processes (relationships), then changing structure will not make their schools more collaborative and the will loss fiscally and in goodwill. If they get anxious and feel accountable – then maybe they need to redefine accountable.
Our primary accountability is with our students and if well fail to make them more collaborative, creative, empathetic and altruistic then we should be held accountably. I can see no better way to encourage those learning behaviours in our students then to model them successfully in the professional behaviours of our staff.
Charlie asked:
So what is the proper balance for the principal. As the boss I'm ultimately responsible and you can't delegate away accountability.
Then Gilbert wrote:
Our primary accountability is with our students and if well fail to make them more collaborative, creative, empathetic and altruistic then we should be held accountably.
This is a great conversation, guys.
I can feel Charlie's tension with the idea of pushing decision making out to faculty members that he may have little confidence in. After all, it's likely that there is a wide range of ability in his building, right?
Some teachers would probably run in an empowered setting and produce terrific results. Others would probably slack and struggle to produce any results.
And Charlie's left trying to explain to his bosses why some kids are succeeding and others are failing.
So what's the solution?
I suspect that it lies somewhere between Charlie being willing to differentiate his leadership style and interactions----something far too few leaders are willing to do---and teachers being willing to see "accountability" redesigned.
I fully believe that administrators should be given more "power" to hold teachers "accountable" for their performance. Evaluation instruments should be changed and processes clarified for what exactly can be "done" when a teacher's performance is sub par.
Teachers often like to talk about their desire to be empowered---but then push back at the idea of accepting responsibility for results.
That can't work.
And administrators often like to talk about empowering teachers---but then treat every member of their faculty like their newest hires.
That can't work either.
Logical, right?
But is it really possible?
Bill Ferriter
Bill you observations are spot on and I do not want to be the ‘tribune’ caught between the senate uneasy with de-evolution of authority and the plebeians unwilling to take responsibility.
I am not suggesting some nirvana here – I have discovered nirvana is a messy placed.
I concur with you and my suggestion is a health check for all participants – both management and ‘rank and file’ talk collaboration. But collaboration means responsibility.
The health check I’m suggesting is for the leaders to ask ‘are you really collaborative in your relationships?’ and as you pointed out – for the trench to say ‘do you really want to take responsibility’. Both will say of course if you give me ownership and that’s the rub – because without altruism and trust a network (learning or social) will fail.
This is conversation is fantastic thank you both – I appreciate the tensions you both express in the leadership vs. follower relationship as we embrace the ultimate egalitarianism.
I guess I am trying to say the ‘vision’ is important but the methodology is vital. It’s about ‘blind spots’ the leader who talks collaboration but does not trust and the teacher who screams more control but do not want responsibility. If we can change the ‘algorithm’ and make both parties realise they are predisposed to saying one thing while doing another (back to my values issue) then we can move the dialogue on.
If we do not embrace this then we will simple rename our argument and dialogue and blame the other side for being entrenched.
The change is powered by how different we believe ourselves to be and how much we understand that is not who we are now.
Post a Comment