Join the conversation

I have been teaching in many capacities since 1975, and it seems to me that most educational leaders want to skip to immediate implementation of educational changes or reforms without first building relationships.

They seem to be in such a hurry to prove themselves as change agents or visionary leaders or reformers, they fail to understand that taking time to build consensus and positive relationships with others is just as important (if not more so) as the content of their proposed reforms. John Wooden once said, "It is what we learn after we know it all that matters." I couldn't agree more.

Unfortunately, many educational leaders tend to lead with their mouths (telling others what is going to be done and how) rather than leading with their ears (listening to other points of view and figuring out how best to work in ways that develop a sense of shared responsibility for student success) and proceeding accordingly. It seems the message is, "Just do what we say. Don't worry, we have done all the thinking for you and we have all of the answers. Remember, it is our way or the highway." This doesn't go over well.

In my district, we have had a revolving door of educational leaders (superintendents and their imported administrative team). We have had four complete turnovers in the last 10 years) who seemed qualified and also personally charming, and yet they each failed to understand that effective leadership is more complex than simply having a great idea and then mandating it. It is not just about being right, it is also about being effective.

Fans of each new leader will always tell others how smart he or she is because their ideas are "so great--so innovative--so cutting edge". My response to that statement was and remains to be, "If this new leader is so smart, why can't he or she figure out an effective way to deliver his or her GREAT message in a way that others can actually receive it and embrace it and move it forward? Why is there usually no institutional feedback loop included to see how the change is going? Or if there is one, why is the feedback so consistently disregarded or dismissed as being unimportant?

In my experience, not only is the latest leader's reform/change/here-is-the-best new-idea-ever-created not only delivered poorly and disrespectfully, many recipients not only resist it, but actively work to sabotage it. Morale plunges. Rumors circulate. Progress stagnates. People are removed and replaced. Politics prevails. The new leader always seems to be baffled and cannot understand how his or her GREAT idea didn't take root and flourish. Many times he or she ends up publicly blaming the teacher's union or the school board members or their own hired staff. Each leader moves on to their next job promising better results. The sad part to me is that this is all so unnecessary.

Having both components (content (what and why) and process (who and how) is the sign of effective leadership. Having a good idea is easy--implementing it requires a lot of consideration for your audience, empathy for their position or role in the change process, and lots of common sense. It takes time to build relationships but in the long run strong relationships built on sharing power will prove to be the only way to sustain any productive changes. Anything else either angers, demotivates, or disengages people. Coming in and telling any employees (educators) that what they are doing and have been doing is all wrong is not a particularly good way to implement change. Does this work in any business or enterprise?

I often use a baseball analogy. If a short stop fields a grounder and throws it so hard that the first baseman cannot possibly catch it to make the play, who's fault is it? If the short stop simply thought about the first baseman's ability to catch (considered the recipient of his message, i.e. the ball) and adjusted his throw to ensure his teammate can make the catch, then the play would be made and the team would benefit.

If instead, the shortstop blames the first baseman for being able to catch the ball he threw and and keeps throwing the ball harder and harder (like a leader mandating his same reforms using escalating force and blaming those who "don't get it"), the teammate will never make the play. The team will not be successful. The shortstop may reassure his "rightness" by thinking to himself--"Not my fault we lost--that first baseman needs to learn how to catch better."

Let's even concede that the shortstop is "right"-- the first baseman SHOULD be able to catch his throw. But wouldn't it be more effective to simply adjust his throw so the recipient can catch it, achieve a quick success, feel competent, and continue to feel motivated to improve his catching ability? Perhaps if the shortstop and the first baseman had taken the time to build a relationship during practices and off of the field they would be more effective partners. There would be an increased trust and willingness to work together on taking actions together that would help their team to win.

If schools alone could fix education and provide equitable outcomes for all children, we would have succeeded by now. We have been working on this since Brown vs. the Board of Education, 1956.

We need all of of us to come out of our respective silos and work together in respectful ways. We must figure out how to team up to share responsibility for student success and healthy development. We need partnerships among ALL of the following:
• Supportive families and opportunities for family engagement
• Early childhood programs
• Out-of-school time activities (including sports, arts, mentoring programs, etc.)
• Health and social services
• Community-based institutions (including community centers, faith-based institutions, community and cultural institutions (such as museums and libraries)
• Colleges and universities

We cannot possibly accomplish our goal of fully supporting student success from the cradle to career without building systematic, productive and reciprocal relationships with all those who have contributions to make--both large and small- to supporting the lives of children.

In the previous post, the first sentence in paragraph 9, should have read:
"If instead, the shortstop blames the first baseman for being UNABLE to catch the ball he threw. . .