When is Variability a Good Thing?

I just returned to my office from having observed a presentation led by two participants in the Wake County School Aspiring Administrator Leadership Institute. I think I had a key leadership learning reinforced this afternoon. Indulge me for a few paragraphs and see if you agree.

The purpose of my observation was to benchmark Leadership Institute presenters' efforts in disseminating the main ideas of VitalSmarts' Influencer training--one of their assignments--against other Institute participants' presentation around the same content. Mind you, Institute participants are considered by the Academy and Wake County Schools to be among the best and brightest building and central-service administrators expected to rise in the district's leadership ranks in the coming years.

Despite participation in the Institute and uniform instruction in how to present the information, of three presentations I have observed to date, no two have been alike. All presenters began with approximately the same agenda, the same three-hour limit, the same video, and the same goals, yet each presentation differed significantly in delivery, use of resources, and learner engagement. What was the same, however, was that every presenter and all of their learners claimed to have been richly rewarded by the experience, smarter about how to influence change, and ready to sign up for the comprehensive two-day training event.

Since W. Edward Deming and the Six Sigma principle that his work spawned, has it not been the case in both business and education that variability is to be reduced? Isn't that what the standards movement in education is all about? Isn't that what's behind the drive for a national curriculum?

To those who argue for uniformity, I say, not so fast. About the Influencer presentation, all desired outcomes were achieved. People were jazzed up and wanted more where that came from. Presenters were affirmed in their ability to present complex material. However, the means of reaching those outcomes ranged widely. Why? Because of presenter attention to learner needs. Some presenters had gregarious folk who wanted to talk a lot; others taught quiet types obviously most productive in solitude. Some presenters had people who had already read the book and could have delivered the presentation; others had people whose prior knowledge was at ground zero.

I think the lesson is this: Effective leaders, whether presenting material, opening a new school, or executing a business plan, are receptive and flexible. When is variability a good thing? When it gets you the leadership results you seek.