Pete Reilly (EdTech Journeys) shares a story about accountability, about who has the power to choose to end an abusive, or unproductive, relationship. He writes:

It is our choice to avoid the messy situation that inevitably emerges when we decide to uphold the standards of the team or the class; and things can and do get messy. It is our choice when we decide that it is better to “get along”… to be liked, than it is to be effective. And once again, it is we who choose to live in the “hope” that if we keep repeating the standards but not enforcing them that things will get better on their own.

It’s like being in an abusive relationship. We can blame the other person for all our problems, for the abuse they heap on us, and live in hope that the other person will change someday; but at some point we need to CHOOSE accountability for our own lives, deal with the mess, and move on.

But what can one do when they have a messy situation? What ARE the choices available to clean up the mess? When I decide to clean up the mess, when I choose to be accountable for my own life, deal with the mess, and “move on,” what are the choices I have available? Maybe that’s not the right question. The question isn’t WHAT, but HOW.

A quick sketch–without judgement–of those HOW options might include the following:

• Be the GOOD guy in a BAD guy scenario. Documenting behavior, following the Human Resources’ “Effective Employee Practices Handbook” you received as an administrator, starting with verbal or written warnings, then escalating to helping people understand that they just aren’t the right fit for the job by making their lives miserable by holding them to the standards outlined. They either resign or change their behavior. This is the scenario that puts the boss, the organization in an unassailable position.
• Be the BAD guy scenario. Since you can’t manage, lead or deal with the problem, get ornery and mean and treat everyone poorly to create Gestapo like conditions so that no one takes the initiative to do things the right way, and any initiative there was, well, kiss it goodbye.
• Be the Martyr. Act like you don’t care about what’s happening, just be nice. After all, abdicating responsibility is one response. If you can’t force people to do what you want, and they’re not motivated by a nobler side, then deal with it by being the martyr.
• Have the Fierce Conversation: This is a response that involves having the tough, or “fierce,” conversation with the person, or, even, the team. It can be tough because no one wants to face their shortcomings, and sure enough, your own shortcomings will come up.

People are people, and we all respond to different approaches. In one scenario, I’m powerless to enact change with the group and can be seen as the one working to the benefit of the group. In another, I am the person responsible for making the call about what WILL be done, calling people when they don’t live up to the commitments they have made as a part of the conversation. How you hold someone accountable is also a concern.

One of the books I’ve been reading is entitled The Managerial Moment of Truth (MMOT). It shares the following:

For every manager there are critical moments that occur regularly. These momnts often go unnoticed, and yet they will determine the managers destiny. We call these managerial moments of truth. The way you deal with these moments will either trap you in a cycle of limitations making your work life harder, or enable you to unleash crucial capacity, align your team, and increase the impact of your leadership.

The actual moment of truth consists of two distinct events. The first even is your awareness that there is a difference between what you expected and what was delivered. The second is the decision you make about what to do with that information.

In Pete Reilly’s example, Dan clearly was aware of a moment of truth with his class. But, the decision he made about what to do with that information was problematic. Pete writes, In Dan’s case, not only does he owe it to himself to deal with the disruptive element in his class; but he owes it to the other children who want to learn. As people in leadership positions, what we decide to do with our awareness, how we choose is critical…but then how do you move forward? I’m fascinated by this question. This question is fundamental to me because the road ahead isn’t clearly demarcated, like the lights on a runway when the clock chimes 3:00 AM.

A part of me like the clearly laid-out path that Bodaken and Fritz recommend in MMOT. The “steps”–Bodaken’s and Fritz’ are in bold but I made some comparison’s to Susan’s Fierce Conversations–-to follow go like this:

1. Acknowledge reality. This reminds me of Susan’s Fierce Conversations advice to Interrogate reality.
2. Analyze how it got to be that way. Again, Susan’s exploration of interrogating reality and clarifying goals.
3. Create a plan. Once analysis is complete, you’re ready to focus everyone on problem-solving, evaluating opportunities and designing strategies.
4. Establish a feedback system. This has to be one of the key strategies so that everyone knows that progress is being made.

One of the challenges I’ve encountered is keeping myself–and others–focused in an “audio-centric” group. As a writer, I have no problem tracking issues and problems via email (you know, the standard technique of summarizing a meeting, action items, areas of responsibility in an email to all participants) or via a wiki. Yet, others have a different modality, require less text and more conversations. That’s a professional growth area for me as I work to expand MY skills to deal with managerial moments of truth. As exciting as a problem area is to solve, it’s not where we should be focused. Paradoxically (sp?), my focus needs to be on plumbing the depths of the team, not on raising work output. That’s not to say that work output isn’t important, but that applying leverage to individuals results in greater change than just saying, “I want you to get more work done because the organization needs it to happen.” Does that make sense?

When we engage in problem-solving, our focus is on what we don’t want–the problem. If we solve the problem, we have absence of the problem. But we may not have what we really want.
The Managerial Moment of Truth

The more I work with a team, the harder I find it to work alone. Let me re-state that…being a part of a team is one of the best experiences I’ve had in my education career since it allows me to accomplish so much more than what I would alone. Accepting the “brutal facts,” as Jim Collins shares in Good to Great, is critical.

What would Dan–referencing Pete’s example again–done differently if he’d started out with a different premise than the one that students were misbehaving? What if he’d focused on what he really wanted–presumably, engaged learners unafraid to use disruptive technologies–rather than dealing with the problem? And, yes, I KNOW the rush of adrenalin of sending someone to the office. In my 2nd year of teaching, I felt it 72 times before the Winter Break…darn thrilling, right? I earned those white strands of hair on my head. Yet, in subsequent years, I found a different approach, a different way of engaging learners that was specific to inner city youth as a campus instructional specialist.

How would understanding the quote below helped me realize that the adrenalin was flowing for the wrong reasons? How would it help Dan?

Real change comes from our willingness to own our vulnerability, confess our failures, and acknowledge that many of our stories do not have a happy ending.
Read Source

Happy endings aren’t the target. REAL, authentic endings…those satisfy and provide the fuel for future growth. This isn’t Hollywood and mapping out authentic endings isn’t something just one person does, but it is something one person can begin, like the ripple of dominoes falling.

---

---

Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org

---

Be sure to visit the ShareMore! Wiki.