TLA has a new contract consultant. His name is Tom Benton. Tom was a school principal for a very long time. His ability to combine craft knowledge with a sincere desire to help school leaders improve their performance made him just the right guy at just the right time.
As you might imagine, TLA has a huge principal customer base with more than 300 schools in its service region, yet I now find myself the only full-time employee with principal experience. Even though we ascribe to leadership as a practice, not a position, and despite the excellent work of training consultants like Dawnelle Hyland, there is a kernel of truth to the old saw that "generals only talk to generals."
Tom retired from Wake County Public Schools at about the same time I was signing on as director of Wake Leadership Academy. Whereas I had been a bit of a rolling stone and a public school administrator for only eight years, Tom had been leading schools in the same district for many years.The older I get, the more I question the wisdom of forever avoiding the moss of the stone that keeps rolling.
In any event, Tom currently facilitates a high school-only School Leader Network and, more to the point of this blog, helps me facilitate a new TLA four-day training program piloted in Wake County for assistant principals. I expect that we will expand it before long to other districts and other audiences.
I mention Tom tonight because, for better or worse, he tends to share my mind. In fact, Tom recently reminded me of a framework for evaluation that I learned long ago and, except for his reminding me of it, I may not have thought to use in the Using Data to Focus Improvement course we co-facilitate.
The framework of which he reminded me and that serves so many purposes so well is this: what, so what, now what? I want to invite you to think along with me about exactly what this means and how you, as a leader, may use it. Let's practice what critical theorists call "deconstruction." First, the "what."
"What" is that which is to be studied, learned, explored, or tried. Here the attention is on implementing the innovation or treatment exactly as it was designed to be implemented. Fidelity is key. Only when the "what" is delivered to specification can the rest of the evaluation make sense. For example, the "what" could be a new reading program. Only to the extent that the program is implemented as it was designed to be implemented can its impact be measured. That leads us to the "so what."
So what if the new reading program was implemented? What difference does it make? Are scores on appropriate student learning measures higher? Why should we allocate additional dollars to buy more of it? Answering questions such as this is the "so what" stage. Even if the response to these questions is a resounding "yes," the circle remains incomplete. The next question is "now what?"
For argument's sake, let's say that the new reading program improved student comprehension in understanding and responding to non-fiction text 40% better than baseline. Now what? Can we purchase the program for all students? Alternately, might we drink from the same well as the program designers and thus create our own version of the program by identifying and implementing salient practices cited in research?
I will leave to your imagination how to apply the what, so what, now what framework in your leadership context, business or education. For that matter, use it to plan your next family vacation. As a graduate school professor of mine was fond of reminding his students, there's nothing more practical than a good theory. Tom and I would love to hear what you learn from your experience.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
10,000 Hours
Mark and Gary were the most amazing musicians I have ever known. That I have not seen them in over 30 years has diminished my respect for them not one bit. From 1978 to 1980, I was a graduate student in music education at The Florida State University. Mark and Gary were undergraduates in applied jazz. They happened to be identical twins. And they were monsters. In the jazz world, that is a very good thing.
But what are Mark and Gary doing in a blog about leadership, two super-introverted guys who even in their early 20s had not had a single date with a member of the opposite sex, attended a movie, or watched a television show from beginning to end? Simple. They epitomized what Malcolm Gladwell in his book, Outliers: The Story of Success, reminded us about anyone who would master a field.
According to a pile of research, if you are to be the best at whatever it is that you do, you must put in the time. But why would anyone put in the time? What would motivate a person to practice the saxophone, write computer code, turn pots, shoot hoops, take photographs, or design web sites for what amounts to five solid years of nine-to-five days, five days a week, fifty weeks a year? If you have other things going on in your life that rob you of your practice time, you may easily double to 10 the number of years to mastery.
This conundrum leads me to more research. In a famous 1970s study of professional violinists, a researcher wanted to know what separated the elite symphonic performers from the merely great ones. He found that the elite one percent loved not only the public performance but the practice. They loved getting the fiddle out of the case, putting rosin on the bow, pulling the bow across the strings, playing scales and arpeggios, feeling the vibration of the instrument in their jaw, and just listening to the enveloping sound. Hour upon hour, they enjoyed doing the one thing, over and over and over.
True confession time: As a musician, I loved the public performance and the applause it engendered. But the practice that got me there--not so much. I was an above-average musician but not an elite musician. I did not enjoy the practice like Mark and Gary did. In fact, I'm not certain that I would practice at all without an excuse outside myself like Mark and Gary did.
What I did enjoy, however, was being responsible for things, conceptualizing and implementing programs and projects from beginning to end, convening and catalyzing teams of performers, coaching others, helping others exceed even their own expectations. I love this work still. I suppose that is a kind of leadership. And I do this at every opportunity despite whether or not I have been asked to do it and regardless of whether or not I am being paid to do it. It is in my DNA. It is my identity.
For me, practicing and studying leadership has been that effort in which I have spent my ten thousand hours. I suspect that, as a reader of this blog you share a little bit of that drive with me whatever your pursuit. It is good to reflect on the Mark and Garys of our lives and realize that we need not be monster jazz musicians to contribute. Just be who you are and do what you enjoy. That is more than enough.
But what are Mark and Gary doing in a blog about leadership, two super-introverted guys who even in their early 20s had not had a single date with a member of the opposite sex, attended a movie, or watched a television show from beginning to end? Simple. They epitomized what Malcolm Gladwell in his book, Outliers: The Story of Success, reminded us about anyone who would master a field.
According to a pile of research, if you are to be the best at whatever it is that you do, you must put in the time. But why would anyone put in the time? What would motivate a person to practice the saxophone, write computer code, turn pots, shoot hoops, take photographs, or design web sites for what amounts to five solid years of nine-to-five days, five days a week, fifty weeks a year? If you have other things going on in your life that rob you of your practice time, you may easily double to 10 the number of years to mastery.
This conundrum leads me to more research. In a famous 1970s study of professional violinists, a researcher wanted to know what separated the elite symphonic performers from the merely great ones. He found that the elite one percent loved not only the public performance but the practice. They loved getting the fiddle out of the case, putting rosin on the bow, pulling the bow across the strings, playing scales and arpeggios, feeling the vibration of the instrument in their jaw, and just listening to the enveloping sound. Hour upon hour, they enjoyed doing the one thing, over and over and over.
True confession time: As a musician, I loved the public performance and the applause it engendered. But the practice that got me there--not so much. I was an above-average musician but not an elite musician. I did not enjoy the practice like Mark and Gary did. In fact, I'm not certain that I would practice at all without an excuse outside myself like Mark and Gary did.
What I did enjoy, however, was being responsible for things, conceptualizing and implementing programs and projects from beginning to end, convening and catalyzing teams of performers, coaching others, helping others exceed even their own expectations. I love this work still. I suppose that is a kind of leadership. And I do this at every opportunity despite whether or not I have been asked to do it and regardless of whether or not I am being paid to do it. It is in my DNA. It is my identity.
For me, practicing and studying leadership has been that effort in which I have spent my ten thousand hours. I suspect that, as a reader of this blog you share a little bit of that drive with me whatever your pursuit. It is good to reflect on the Mark and Garys of our lives and realize that we need not be monster jazz musicians to contribute. Just be who you are and do what you enjoy. That is more than enough.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Systems and Results
The Tarheels lost to the Blue Devils Wednesday night. Invested as I am in UNC as both a tuition-paying parent and basketballl fan, it was a disappointment. Cold comfort came the next day in an interview with Coach K. What he said was a reminder for all of us. To paraphrase, success is not as much an outcome of individual effort as of a system of support.
In the case of a winning college basketball program, the system includes administrative and alumni support, effectively recruiting high school talent, the competence of assistant coaches, the physical conditioning and health of the players, the players' continuing academic eligibility, and last but not least, the loyal support of fans. K didn't mention the Cameron Crazies by name but word is more than a few opponents have been distracted by the freak show.
In any event, the interview got me thinking about TLA. Last week, I wrote on the winter meeting of the Board of Advisors. By all reports, it was a success both as a business meeting and learning event. Attendees enjoyed presentations by principals--Erica Boone of Durham, Eileen Tully of Chapel Hill-Carrboro, and Parry Graham of Wake--each of whom affirmed TLA's contribution to making learning and teaching better in his or her school.
As gratifying as the meeting was, it left me wanting more conversation. Why? I think it had to do with the need to improve our system of support. You, dear reader, now find yourself on one side of that continuing conversation. Here is what I am thinking:
Whether a new principal induction program, a school leader network, or a customized training for a school staff, TLA strives to work "with and through senior leaders" in districts to accomplish the leadership-development work of the district. The TLA system of support and its ultimate success is made stronger when it is "at the table" when district leadership problems are surfaced. Does that mean the executive director should regularly attend meetings of district leaders? Maybe. Maybe not.
What I do know is that improvement begins with a learning conversation, coming clean about performance gaps. creating a shared vision for ideal performance, causally analyzing why gaps exist, setting goals, identifying interventions to attain goals, managing individual and organizational change, and using data to measure intervention impact. No one-man show that.
When TLA is conflated with sole-source leadership development, resulting behavioral and organizational change can no more be attributed to TLA intervention than Duke's winning last Wednesday night's game can be attributed to the team's performance that one night.
Talent alone is necessary but insufficient. The question is: what more is behind the win? Research and Coach K says that behind every successful program, there is a system of support. How do we improve our system for the results we want?
In the case of a winning college basketball program, the system includes administrative and alumni support, effectively recruiting high school talent, the competence of assistant coaches, the physical conditioning and health of the players, the players' continuing academic eligibility, and last but not least, the loyal support of fans. K didn't mention the Cameron Crazies by name but word is more than a few opponents have been distracted by the freak show.
In any event, the interview got me thinking about TLA. Last week, I wrote on the winter meeting of the Board of Advisors. By all reports, it was a success both as a business meeting and learning event. Attendees enjoyed presentations by principals--Erica Boone of Durham, Eileen Tully of Chapel Hill-Carrboro, and Parry Graham of Wake--each of whom affirmed TLA's contribution to making learning and teaching better in his or her school.
As gratifying as the meeting was, it left me wanting more conversation. Why? I think it had to do with the need to improve our system of support. You, dear reader, now find yourself on one side of that continuing conversation. Here is what I am thinking:
Whether a new principal induction program, a school leader network, or a customized training for a school staff, TLA strives to work "with and through senior leaders" in districts to accomplish the leadership-development work of the district. The TLA system of support and its ultimate success is made stronger when it is "at the table" when district leadership problems are surfaced. Does that mean the executive director should regularly attend meetings of district leaders? Maybe. Maybe not.
What I do know is that improvement begins with a learning conversation, coming clean about performance gaps. creating a shared vision for ideal performance, causally analyzing why gaps exist, setting goals, identifying interventions to attain goals, managing individual and organizational change, and using data to measure intervention impact. No one-man show that.
When TLA is conflated with sole-source leadership development, resulting behavioral and organizational change can no more be attributed to TLA intervention than Duke's winning last Wednesday night's game can be attributed to the team's performance that one night.
Talent alone is necessary but insufficient. The question is: what more is behind the win? Research and Coach K says that behind every successful program, there is a system of support. How do we improve our system for the results we want?
Friday, February 4, 2011
Good Advice
One of the truly honorable things about my job as executive director of TLA is convening our boards: the Board of Governors--the superintendents, each one's selected board of education member and business partner; and the local education fund president, his selected board member and business partner; and the Board of Advisors--each superintendent's appointed assistant superintendent and central-service and building administrators. I've never worked with better folk.
But if you were hoping to have begun your day with this blog, I apologize. I intentionally waited until Friday afternoon to capture and report on an important meeting of the TLA Board of Advisors earlier today.
The reason today's meeting was perhaps more important than most other meetings should be obvious by now. The horse that took us this far can take us no further. Translation: the member fee structure that created and sustained us for the last five years must be discarded. What advice would you give such an organization?
To begin at the beginning, meeting attendees know that after welcome and introductions, announcement of good news, and review of the agenda, I present a standing piece I call "State of the Academy." This piece today began by sharing results-to-date of my structured interviews with district leaders, initially scheduled in Wake County and ideally expanding to other TLA districts. The idea behind the interviews is get a sense of how TLA has served their division, department, or area in the last five years, and what TLA may do to improve our partnership in the next five years.
Gratifying is the way I would describe the interviews so far. The average senior leader and his or her direct reports have engaged in at least five to six TLA learning events, with our signature products from VitalSmarts and Interaction Associates leading the way. The only area superintendent I have interviewed so far reported that seven of her principals have participated in one of our School Leader Networks. To a lesser extent that will be true of other area superintendents' responses, according to the record.
Looking ahead for the next five years, there was consensus that, if anything, TLA may be doing too much, may be spread too thinly, and could improve its needs-sensing strategies. The other side of the coin, and built into the interview, was that a couple of leaders stated that they could do a better job of reaching out to TLA as issues arose instead of waiting to be invited or trying to solve the problem themselves.
I could have written the above information before the meeting. What happened at the meeting, however, was that the conversation there mirrored what I was learning from privately interviewed leaders. To get a feeling for district needs, one advisor said we "needed to be in the room" when problems with a professional-development solution are surfaced. Another advisor talked about looking at the vast portfolio of TLA learning assets and feeling nearly "overwhelmed with choices." Sometimes less really is more.
The question that might best capture advisors' conversation was this: How does TLA bridge the sometimes disconnect between its high-quality service and leadership problems that actually live in the districts? In my mind, figuring out a way to answer this question is good advice. If we are walking our talk, those answers will come best from you. I am convinced that once we find those answers, money will find us. Talk to me.
But if you were hoping to have begun your day with this blog, I apologize. I intentionally waited until Friday afternoon to capture and report on an important meeting of the TLA Board of Advisors earlier today.
The reason today's meeting was perhaps more important than most other meetings should be obvious by now. The horse that took us this far can take us no further. Translation: the member fee structure that created and sustained us for the last five years must be discarded. What advice would you give such an organization?
To begin at the beginning, meeting attendees know that after welcome and introductions, announcement of good news, and review of the agenda, I present a standing piece I call "State of the Academy." This piece today began by sharing results-to-date of my structured interviews with district leaders, initially scheduled in Wake County and ideally expanding to other TLA districts. The idea behind the interviews is get a sense of how TLA has served their division, department, or area in the last five years, and what TLA may do to improve our partnership in the next five years.
Gratifying is the way I would describe the interviews so far. The average senior leader and his or her direct reports have engaged in at least five to six TLA learning events, with our signature products from VitalSmarts and Interaction Associates leading the way. The only area superintendent I have interviewed so far reported that seven of her principals have participated in one of our School Leader Networks. To a lesser extent that will be true of other area superintendents' responses, according to the record.
Looking ahead for the next five years, there was consensus that, if anything, TLA may be doing too much, may be spread too thinly, and could improve its needs-sensing strategies. The other side of the coin, and built into the interview, was that a couple of leaders stated that they could do a better job of reaching out to TLA as issues arose instead of waiting to be invited or trying to solve the problem themselves.
I could have written the above information before the meeting. What happened at the meeting, however, was that the conversation there mirrored what I was learning from privately interviewed leaders. To get a feeling for district needs, one advisor said we "needed to be in the room" when problems with a professional-development solution are surfaced. Another advisor talked about looking at the vast portfolio of TLA learning assets and feeling nearly "overwhelmed with choices." Sometimes less really is more.
The question that might best capture advisors' conversation was this: How does TLA bridge the sometimes disconnect between its high-quality service and leadership problems that actually live in the districts? In my mind, figuring out a way to answer this question is good advice. If we are walking our talk, those answers will come best from you. I am convinced that once we find those answers, money will find us. Talk to me.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
