Best of Class: D x V x FS > R Huh?

Best of Class: D x V x FS > R Huh?: A challenge associated with any change theory of action is we know change is not linear, concrete, or sequential in practice.   As we have ...

D x V x FS > R Huh?

A challenge associated with any change theory of action is we know change is not linear, concrete, or sequential in practice.  As we have learned through experience, change theory is just that, theory. 

Change generally costs more than we want to pay!

Change takes longer than we anticipated!

Change takes us down roads, paths, and trails we never thought we’d go!

Face it - Change is messy!

As someone whom for most of my career has been about creating, provoking, cajoling, facilitating, leading, or preaching “change”, I, like most people, don’t’ like “changing”.  

There is a difference of course between “change” and “changing”.

One is a “what” or an expectation while the other is a process or “how”.

The desired or expected result of change is “good”, “improvement” or “better”.  Whereas “changing” is where the carnage pile up.  Making change a four-letter word, right?

More often or not lacking a well thought through “process” plan or map is missing.  I have learned that the absence of an assessment of capacity, competence, confidence, constraints, and courage to navigate the change process successfully is what makes “changing” such a mess.

In presenting the inequality D x V x FS > R, the variables of Dissatisfaction (D), Vision (V), and Reluctance or Resistance (R) with the intent of emphasizing that there is a range within each variable that influences the utility and import of that variable on the process have previously been unpacked.

Dissatisfaction must be informed by data that is perceived to be within the control of those who for the most part need to change their thinking to change a program, practice, process or etc.  Vision must resonate with the core values or guiding principles of each individual as well as the organization.  It must be clear, understandable, and compelling.

Balancing the range of dissatisfaction and vision is potentially a slippery slope.  This is where First Steps (FS) becomes absolutely critical because it is the “how” of “changing”.   If, for example, an individual, group, or organization does not have the capacity, confidence, or competence to initiate, engage, or participate in the proposed change no vision or level of dissatisfaction will suffice to ensure the change is successful.

The analysis or assessment of capacity, confidence and competence of individuals is informed by understanding of constraints – individually and organizationally.   Constraints are neither good nor bad – they just are!  Out of balance, however, constraints are a liability.

What does this mean?

I’ve learned that constraints are at the heart of taking first steps toward “change”.  Too often, leaders skip over constraints and miss the power and purpose of assessing self and others to ascertain if, and to what extent constraints pose imminent danger to “changing”.  Failure to account for constraints is fatal and will fuel the very beliefs and behaviors that shift reluctance to both overt and covert resistance.

We have embarked on a transformative change initiative of technology integration to conversion of teaching and learning.  Without going into details about the specific plan, our first step was to identify any and all known constraints that could or would prevent us from moving forward. 

Chief among these were the capacity, confidence and competence of our instructional staff with instructional design and use of digital tools and devices.  Making assumptions about capacities can be as catastrophic as failing to identify and address constraints. 

This is where courage in and of leadership comes into play.  Leaders must leverage time not be held hostage by it to develop not only understanding but also a plan to address constraints – individually and organizationally.  Hence, my summation that First Steps is the most critical of the variables in our inequality.

The landscape is becoming replete with examples of failed change initiatives resultant from the failure to build or expand capacity, competence, and confidence to ensure constraints don’t impede or prevent change as being achievable. 

Let me conclude by returning to where I started, resistance being misinterpreted.  Yes, there will always be an element resisting any change.  I’ve learned that many that resist have had a negative experience with change a constraint to be sure.  This is probably why I like this inequality.  It makes sense.  It allows me and those I have worked with to build enough capacity to reduce not eliminate resistance. Applying this theory of action is a tool for leaders to use to increase the desired and expected results of change.

Best of success on your next change initiative - 

Best of Class: What's Needed to Initiate Change?

Best of Class: What's Needed to Initiate Change?: In “Reluctance or Resistance – not the same”, I offered an mathematical inequality shared with me many years ago representing a theory of a...

What's Needed to Initiate Change?

In “Reluctance or Resistance – not the same”, I offered an mathematical inequality shared with me many years ago representing a theory of action to initiative change and increase the opportunity for success.  On one side of the inequality are three variables and on the other side is one - the variable of reluctance often interpreted as resistance.

As you recall, inequalities are represented by symbols translated as “less than, less than or equal to, greater than, or greater than or equal to” as compared to equalities where the “equal to” symbol is used.   Utilizing similar understandings and practices employed with solving equalities, solving inequalities never yield a definitive number or value.  Rather, inequalities are always expressed in terms of a range hence the “less than or equal to” language for example.  When applied to the theory of action for change, this makes perfect sense especially in interpreting variables like reluctance or resistance.  There is always a range of reluctance as there is with resistance to any thing new or different.

Last week I committed to discussing the variable dissatisfaction. I realized, however, that it would be unfair and to a certain degree impractical not to include the second of three variables, vision, to assist with context.  If you don’t have an “ideal state” or a “picture of the future”, dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs is futile.

Dissatisfaction in and of it self is problematic for two reasons.  

First – As the first step towards making a change, dissatisfaction is more than a state of frustration or discontent with the status quo; and

Second – Dissatisfaction with the status quo requires data - authentic, relevant data.  

The most misunderstood use of data is the degree to which there is perceived and real ownership of the data used to illuminate dissatisfaction.  Too often data points are summarily dismissed and labeled as inauthentic or invalid.  This occurs chiefly because there is perceived little or no influence and therefore control of what the data represents.  An additional reason data is dismissed is that not all data is of equal worth or value.  Simply, “weighing the pig doesn’t make the pig fatter”.

In education, for example, this was true – note past tense.  We know more now than ever the “cause and effect” relationship between teaching and learning.  We also know the oft-cited and historical reasons for poor student performance or failure to learn was attributed to influences or factors outside educators’ control.  This has and continues to be readily accepted.  What research has proven (see Correlates of Effective Schools research) is that educators do, in fact, control enough of the factors to ensure effective or successful learning for each learner irrespective of their ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, language, or etc.

The key is focusing on those factors that are within the control of educators.  To that end, the data used to bring to light dissatisfaction must be perceived within an individual, group, or organization's control.

Dissatisfaction needs a vision.  If you have a high degree of dissatisfaction but a lackluster vision, staff become disillusioned, dishearten, and possibly cynical or skeptical about committing to change.  Conversely, low dissatisfaction accompanied by a powerful vision will generate much the same but with leadership.  

Teetering on being political, a present example is the Affordable Health Care Act.  The vision of universal health care is powerful.  The level of dissatisfaction with the present system, however, is not to a level that the vision requires especially with those most needed to participate.  Hence, there is significant reluctance and resistance to accepting and embracing the vision irrespective of the legitimacy of the vision.  Finding balance between dissatisfaction and vision to successfully initiate change requires a third variable – First Steps.

First Steps may be the most significant of the variables in proving our inequality as true.  In this case, we want to prove that Dissatisfaction (D) multiplied by Vision (V) multiplied by First Steps (FS) is greater than Reluctance (R) or Resistance (D x V x FS > R).

Dissatisfaction must be informed by data.  Data must have ownership. Thus, the range of dissatisfaction is informed by the range of ownership each person has with the data.  The range of vision is defined by how compelling the “ideal state” is with each individual as well as the organizational. The vision, if forced or mandated, will create a state of compliance not commitment increasing the range of reluctance and resistance.  

Change to be successful requires commitment.  Again, the alignment of core values and guiding principles to the vision is critical and is what generates and sustains commitment.

Next week, an explanation of First Steps will provide both awareness and understanding as to why the range of dissatisfaction and vision has not by themselves balanced reluctance or resistance to begin about enduring change.  We will look at the important role capacity, competence, constraints, and courage play in defining the variable First Steps range.

Resistance or Reluctance; They're not the same!

It’s not so much what we know or even what we know we don’t know that interferes with change albeit personal, professional or organizational.  Rather, it is what we don’t know that we don’t know that more often or not prevents the greatest challenges to change and the change process.

Recently, a colleague and I were “thinking through” several obstacles presently in the way of change.  In this particular incident the change needed is a significant shift in the way we approach college advisement and the college admission process especially for historically underrepresented or marginalized groups of students.  Though no “clear” answer was agreed upon an understanding of a change process illuminated several deliberate steps we need to take to increase the likelihood of a shift.

Tremendous effort has been expended to understand change with the best hopes of bringing it about efficiently and effectively.  Change and the change experience are argued with the best intentions – linear versus nonlinear, logical versus illogical, concrete versus random, orderly versus chaotic and so on.  Suffice; change and the change process may be likened to describing “good” weather – it all depends on the individual.

We do know change and the change process are often messy, complex, and tainted with conflict. We all have experienced mandated change and heard or read all the reasons, rationales, explanations, and excuses accompanying the “why” of change.

Over the next couple of weeks – leading up to the New Year when “change” is in the air and often vogue to discuss and commit to, I will share some thoughts from “this is what I’ve learned” category with respect to change and the change process.

Back to the colleague and my conversation - The change process we discussed was first introduced to me in the mid-1990’s by a consultant working with our organization.  The underpinnings for this particular process are a combination of a number of theories about human learning, motivation, control, and change.

Not to over simplify but I’ve come to experience any change as akin to a mathematical inequality - a mathematical expression that shows that two quantities are not equal.  The goal or aim of an inequality is to make both sides equal to one another.

On one side of the change equation is the need to change and on the other exists the need not to change.  Teetering on the obvious.  The need not to change is often referred to as resistance to change.  We all know what resistance looks like, feels like, and sounds like. The landscape is replete with examples of “change” battles won and lost.  In the end, a lot of damage and disappointment not to mention disillusionment, distrust, and cynicism.

I’ve learned that resistance is more often or not reluctance.  The two are generally seen as the same but are not.  Misidentified or misunderstood, resistance and reluctance are often treated the same. 

Big mistake!

Where resistance is blocking, opposing, challenging, obstructing – some may call it “digging in your heels”; reluctance is more about a need to process, connect dots, accept uncertainty, take risk, or suspend fear of failure.  In fact, reluctance is where we accept, embrace, and practice “questions are our friends not our enemy” mindset.  Providing and giving clarification constantly and consistently goes a long way with addressing reluctance.  I don’t want to get ahead of myself.  Before we get to reluctance and resistance there is a lot of work that must be done.

Let me go so far as to say that resistance and reluctance are on one side of the equation and must be balanced to ensure that change and the change process has the best opportunity for success.   

Next week, one of the three factors, dissatisfaction will be explored. 

If We Only Knew

“We can not solve today's problems at the same level of thought we were at when we created them”

Albert Einstein

Most of what we are attempting “fix” today were solutions to past problems.  This should be insight to what is to come - today's solutions will be tomorrow's problems.

Teetering on master of the obvious, good intentions and best hopes seldom solve problems. More often or not, our solutions like those implemented before fail to resolve or solve completely the problem.  I believe it is more or less due to a critical missed opportunity.  That is, the understanding and practice of root cause analysis.  

Akin to treating the common cold, we use different strategies to address the symptoms of a cold.  Actually, our body reacts to any number of viruses (some estimate over a 200) creating a set of symptoms we commonly refer to as a cold.

According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, scientists can identify the cause of a large percentage of colds but there remain somewhere between 20 to 30 percent unidentified.  They are hopeful that technology will assist in getting the “causes” identified in the next 10 years.

Treating the symptoms of a cold is not addressing the virus.  We merely treat any number of symptoms hoping to feel better.  Scientists are hopeful that there may in fact be a vaccine in the future to prevent the spread of cold producing viruses.

The good news is that unlike the cold, organizations can in fact not only identify the root cause of a problem but can take steps to adjust, correct, and prevent future problems.

I’ve learned that it's not that we don't want to get to the "root" of a problem.  We either don't invest the time, energy, or effort, or, we don't know how.  Nonetheless, getting to root cause is extremely important to a learning organization.

There are several proven tools and strategies with respect to root cause analysis.  Leaders must select one that best meets the culture, context, and capacity of their organization.

I want to suggest that root cause analysis is not just for identifying the cause of a problem.  It can be used as a tool to identify "what" we stop doing.  

In rereading Permission to Forget by Lee Jenkins, I was reminded of a powerful concept - one that I need to get better at - "add one subtract two" Simply, before adding an initiative, change, policy or etc. effective leaders carefully examine their organization to identify at least two programs, practices, or the like to abandon or eliminate.  Root cause analysis can assist especially in the area of initiative overload.

Determining program efficiency and effectiveness goes beyond identification of root cause.  Bill Daggett introduced the efficiency/effectiveness matrix several years.  The application of the matrix is most powerful when you require the use of actual data to determine where you place a program or practice with respect to efficiency (cost) and effectiveness (performance).

The utility and import of the matrix is found in the depth of data used to determine efficiency and effectiveness.  You must use both qualitative and quantitative data points.  What you can't use or at least depend upon is anecdotal accounts or evidence of cost and results.  Though tempting to rush this, you have to drill down to actual cost and actual performance results.

If we utilize both root cause analysis and the efficiency/effectiveness matrix we can make better decisions today especially in addressing “yesterday’s” solutions – our current problems.

I am confident that we can reduce the likelihood of future leaders looking at our decisions or solutions as problems if we invest in both root cause analysis and the efficiency/effectiveness matrix on a continuous basis.  

"Preferred Future - When was the last time ..."

Leadership is more than the “now”. 

It must be about the future!

We have all heard it – “leaders have vision!”

Arguably, developing others and influence are strong parallels but vision, or the lack of, differentiates leaders – or it should. 

Borrowing from a Cisco advertisement, “Tomorrow starts here” is a great first step of a significant role of leadership – describing a preferred future. 

Being provocative, leading for the moment is not leading at all.  Rather, it is maintaining and more or less a function of managing.  Whereas, leading for the future is defining as well as describing a preferred future in such a way that it compels others to see it, want it, own it, and be a part of doing it.

Preferred future cannot be limited to a picture with today’s issues, problems, or challenges solved.  Rather, preferred future answers a critical question, “What does our work look like completed?”  It requires examining the “mission” and describing the mission accomplished.  It is not about the “how” but clearly articulated “what” and “why”.

I suggest that one reason preferred future is absent from leadership is rather simple not profound.  Time and intentional use of time to invest in conversations about preferred future though important is not valued, as it should.

Vividly, I recall Dr. Carl Glickman asking, “As a nation, why do we celebrate the 4^th of July?”  Though obvious to many, it is a day that we as nation review as well as reflect on the principles of our foundation – why we are a nation.  I believe we also think about where we’ve been, where we are, and where we’re headed as a nation.

I think preferred future is more that a day a year.  It is more than a workshop, in-service, or meeting.  Defining and describing the work completed – mission accomplished must be ongoing.  The oft-cited conversation between the Cheshire Cat and Alice in Wonderland, “if you don’t know where you’re going any road will do” rings truer today than ever.

In a time of sound bytes, 30-second attention spans, and ubiquitous connectivity making time to revisit, reflect, and review the “what” and “why” of where we are going seems to me to be critical. 

Again, leadership is about the future. 

When was the last time you intentionally described for others the future you are trying to create?

Thoughts, Comments, and Observations: "There can be no compromise"

Thoughts, Comments, and Observations: "There can be no compromise": Watching a journalist apologize on national television and admit they were wrong on a story was not in any way reassuri...

Best of Class: "Truth Matters"

Best of Class: "Truth Matters": Watching a journalist apologize on national television and admit they were wrong on a story was not in any way reassur...

"Truth Matters"

Watching a journalist apologize on national television and admit they were wrong on a story was not in any way reassuring that what is right, good, and true will be reported.  Adding insult to journalistic integrity was the acknowledgment that mainstream networks pay individuals for interviews, film footage, and exclusive rights to stories creating for me at least a sense that "truth" is a commodity to be traded on the open market.

More troubling, even by those in the media, is the ever-increasing practice of embellishment, sensationalizing, and outright lying or falsehoods being reported as "true".  It's not that the press has been without a position albeit partisan, conservative, liberal, or etc. but compromising integrity, compromising facts, compromising objectivity for a story – hmm … maybe something else is wrong!  Are we naive enough to accept that truth should be subject to the highest bidder?

Maybe, just maybe it's not being naive.  Rather, is it possible that we have become so polarized by ideology that we expect to read, watch, and hear news through the lenses we choose to see the world through?  Truth as subjective?  Truth as situational?  Truth as amoral? 

How does the CBS 60 Minutes report on Benghazi or NBC's purchasing the Sky Diving accident footage and exclusive interviews have to do with education - public education? 

Everything!

Negative stories about student performance and the state of education in general are reported and accepted with little debate.  Questioning the integrity of such reports is viewed more often than not as "whining",  "complaining" or "defensive" especially when reports use data to manipulate a point or position.

Educators have in many cases "given up" trying to educate the press in what constitutes performance improvement or growth because in most cases they don't want to know or worse, they justify that their readers will not understand.  For example, the public understands such ratings as "A" or " "F".  But, do they?

In a society steeped in competition, winners and losers, success and failure, and finishing first or finishing last it is hard to break away from the mindset of “A” equals excellence and “F” equates to failure. 

Effort, attitude, grit, perseverance, motivation, commitment, determination and the like are what differentiate success from failure.  Opportunity and access as well as timing – being in the right place at the right time are also considered contributing factors.  Lastly, the value proposition of, for, and by an education weighs heavy in tipping the scales of success – can all of this be reflected by a letter grade?  A test score?

These are important.  These qualities are however what we must desire for all - not just a few.  And what’s more is this should be reported!

The truth and what is seldom reported is how schools today are intentionally building the aforementioned skills, habits in children.  It's far too easy to simply use an antiquated reporting system rather than create a system that reports progress and growth including the skills, knowledge and experience we expect and desire for each learner.

What matters more - how we start or how we finish?

Once standards were introduced the traditional grading system became antiquated.  Meeting or exceeding the standard became the goal for all.  Grades for too long were used to sort and select learners not necessarily reflect the level of competence, mastery of learning.  The complexity of teaching and learning now more than ever cannot be summarized by a letter grade.

There is emerging practice that reports progress toward meeting or exceeding standards.  Using language students, parents, educators, and yes the press understands is what is needed.  Agree or disagree, a letter grade does not inform or articulate progress toward achieving a standard.

Back to journalistic integrity -

Truth matters!

Reporting accurately, authentically, and with transparency is what we should demand and at a minimum, expect in reporting about education let alone other matters.  We need to without apology question not only what is reported but the motivation of those reporting.

Accountability is two-way – the press holding the public accountable and the public holding the press accountable. 

There can be no compromise to accountability!

"It is Time"

"Bullying"

There isn't a day that we don't hear or read about "bullying" in our schools, our community, or our nation.  I believe we are dangerously close to becoming numb to bullying as a justification, rationale, excuse, or explanation for retaliation or worse - the taking of ones' own life or the life of others.

Why?

You would be extremely hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn’t believe bullying is wrong in any form.

Why then is bullying an issue?

Addressing bullying and moreover preventing bullying is more than a slogan, speech, poster, or assembly.  It requires more.

Again I must ask, “why”?

From my perspective we have completely lost sight of our individual and collective responsibility, accountability, and authority required of a civil society.  At a minimum a civil society practices and demonstrates respect of, for, and by each of its’ citizens.  Irrespective of whether or not we agree with an opinion, position, policy, law, or etc. – we respect the right, the fundamental right to disagree – respectfully.

In a civil society we call into question behaviors that interfere with the safety or well-being of others. 

In a civil society we take responsibility for holding others and ourselves to the behaviors we expect and require to ensure the safety and well being of others.

In a civil society we don't fear reprisal, repercussions, or retaliation for holding self and others accountable for interfering behaviors

Most people, however, don't know that bullying is a legal term not just a catchall phrase for inappropriate behavior.  Flippantly “bullying” is tossed around recklessly in the press without unpacking first the definition.  This is further compounded by the absence of a comprehensive approach to minimize let alone eradicate "bullying". 

Legislation at the local, state, and national levels exists.  In common is a legal definition that includes words or phrases like "pattern of behavior", "intended to intimidate", "gain an advantage", and "intentional acts that cause harm" to name just a few.  The forms in which these intentional acts occur include but are not limited to verbal, written, cyber, video, or digital.  They can be physical, non-verbal, via social media, or in about any manner in which communication can occur.

There was a time when it could be assumed that children came to school equipped with certain skills, knowledge, and experience associated with a civil society.  In a like manner, many if not a majority of students possessed a foundation of skills such as self-management, self-control, self-discipline, conflict resolution, or de-escalation strategies.  Today these are the exception not the rule.

 Further exacerbating civility is the absence of self-advocacy skills where individuals as well as groups are empowered, entitled if you will, with the "right" to advocate for their safety and well being.

Edmund Burke penned, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." 

A civil society does not turn a blind eye on interfering behaviors.

A civil society does not choose to be deaf to interfering behaviors.

A civil society does not loose its' voice to interfering behaviors.   

The call for "doing" is clear. 

Our challenge is "how".

There are powerful strategies and programs that do in fact work.  Needed are the courage, commitment, and conviction to implement with fidelity. 

I want to strongly endorse these approaches I know from personal experience that work. They compliment one another.  Combined, these approaches provide our best strategy to address both the symptoms and root cause of bullying in our schools, communities, and society.

"Capturing Kids Hearts" (http://www.flippengroup.com/education/ckh.html) is fundamental and foundational.  It provides the answer to "why" we should intentionally engage each learner and adult.

"Make Your Day" (http://www.makeyerday.com) is the tool to learn, equip, practice, and monitor citizenship by both students and adults with respect, dignity, and civility.

The final tool and one necessary to proactively combat bullying and harassment is the "McGrath system" (http://www.mcgrathinc.com/mjm.htm) 

If we are really serious about addressing bullying we will look at these three powerful strategies as a comprehensive solution – we owe it to this present generation and to each that follows to equip them with the skills, knowledge, and experience to live and thrive in a civil society.

Eradicate Illiteracy

Eradicate illiteracy?

It will take between 36 to 48 months to eliminate illiteracy in America’s schools!

Believe it?

Well ... probably not!

Excuses abound as to why we cannot achieve this. We have all the skills, knowledge, and experience to send “a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth” – oh that was a different vision. 

My conclusion is as a nation we really don't want to each child fully and functionally literate.  

Did I just say that? 

If we were serious about universal literacy, we would get it done.  No excuses!

We already know what is necessary to successfully teach each learner.  We can effectively teach each child to learn to read as well as how to read to learn.

The excuses, explanations, objections, rebuttals, and the like are underpinned by opinion not empirical research.  Our challenges to eradicating illiteracy are more associated with the adults not the learners.  In part, motivated by the incredible amount money spent on interventions and remediation and in part by the lack of understanding effective pedagogy, literacy is not universal nor will it be any time in the near future. 

Don’t get me wrong.  Teachers every day provide incredible learning for learners despite the system constraints they face.  Incredible as it may seem, the very system they find themselves working within is working against them and us for that matter. 

The narrowly defined accountability system, the inability to understand standards, and the inability to design, deliver as well as assess instruction to inform instructional decisions combine to create a culture of failure – though we expect differently.

Often falling on deaf ears, those most adversely impacted by the system are those most dependent upon our schools for their learning, their success, and their future.

Their future however is our future. 

The cost of failure to learn as well as failed learning is extremely costly fiscally and culturally not to mention the devastation to the human spirit.

The most egregious result of illiteracy is poverty.  Poverty is too expensive.  We cannot afford it.   Rather than throw money away at programs to remediate, reform or recover failed learning why don’t we make the investment to prevent the failure to learn – eradicate illiteracy!

A fully literate society will not necessarily eradicate poverty.  It will, however, purposefully begin to reverse societal erosion caused by generational poverty.  Breaking the cycle of poverty cannot and will not authentically begin until we achieve universal literacy.

The first step to eradicate illiteracy is the most challenging – change the way we think before we change the way we behave.  Prevention to intervention requires a commitment to the mission that marshals not only fiscal resources but also human capital to aggressively address the skill, knowledge, and experience deficit children have as they enter the system.

The advent of effective and efficient digital tools, robust technology solutions that address learner inexperience with oral and written language are literally at our fingertips.  What we must do is first utilize these tools now, consistently and constantly to address literacy.  Without this action learners with the aforementioned deficits will never access or engage the full curriculum let alone meet or exceed local, state, national, or international standards. 

This is where insanity manifests itself.  Without disrupting our thinking or our behavior we commit the same crime as those before us – what isn’t learned now will be remediated later!

Seriously?

Our educators need permission to ensure literacy first before “tilting at windmills”. 

Policy makers listen up - If literacy is the focus of our intentions, convictions, commitments, and decisions first and foremost, accountability will take care of itself.

Not sure why we don’t get this?

Unless of course there is different agenda -