Source: http://www.flemploymentlawblog.com/uploads/image/Jiffy_Lube.gif
“Miguel,” shared a colleague, “and this stays between us,” he emphasized, “I read your blog entry last night. Everything you wrote described the situation in my school district.”
“Which blog entry are you referring to?” I countered, wondering at which blog entry had suddenly turned into a ticking time bomb of emotion and engagement for my colleague, an opportunity for careful consideration and growth on his part.
“You know, the one you wrote with the scenario.”
“Oh, you mean the Eduwrite Blog,” I responded remembering my latest entry there.
And, then, with a sinking feeling, I realized what he meant. The blog entry–Looks Before Leaping–was in response to this scenario:
The Curriculum Department for your school district has decided that to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), it needs to implement a costly, technology-based intervention. Your team of directors/coordinators realizes that the technology-based intervention is being ordered without a real grasp of the technology infrastructure challenges at the school. Simply put, the equipment in classrooms is not capable of running the software or too obsolete to run the client software. While everyone on the team is aware of the issues, how do you present this information to your supervisors who proposed the purchase and now have a pending purchase worth half a million to a million dollars in the pipe for School Board Approval? You’re the only one who sees the issues clearly enough to articulate them. Everyone is looking to you. What are you going to do?
My response to this scenario, in addition to face to face meetings, was to craft an email that reflected the real obstacles a district faces when embracing new technology-based curriculum interventions without taking stock of limited technology access in the schools where the intervention(s) will be deployed. Another response is raising the topic with my supervisor and leaders, asking, “Will an integrated learning system like [brand name here] really get us the results we want?” Or, as another colleague put it, “Why aren’t we investing a fraction of this funding in professional development for our teachers and leaders?” These are important questions, ones I have often asked in the past but felt constrained by “invsible rules.”
You know which rules I mean, don’t you? They are the same rules that keep educators from writing a blog, talking to their boss about an apparent problem because it’s obvious that the problem is a problem with the boss’ reasoning. One can console oneself with the words, “You know, s/he knows what they’re doing; they’re the boss after all and they make the decision and I carry them out.” But, did your boss hire an automaton or a professional who learns 24/7 and works for the betternment of the organization, not the boss who represents that organization?
This entry at Unfolding Leadership on Rejecting the Default Culture brought this conversation back to my mind, especially these rules of operation:
This default culture is a set of practices and assumptions based the negative side of old-style formal hierarchy. It includes such “invisible rules” as:
- Good employees keep their heads down and do what they’re asked to do without complaint. They know how to make the boss look good.
- People who raise uncomfortable questions are trouble-makers.
- People who rock the boat will pay for it; if not now, later.
- Loyalty to the boss/organization means covering up problems, truths, and even ethical issues that could make us look bad.
- Achieving individual agendas is the whole game. “There are winners and losers and I’m no loser.”
- Blaming, judging, undermining others, scapegoating and other forms of “cya” behavior are the norm. (These behaviors involve individuals, whole teams, entire departments.)
Surely, you’ve experienced what Dan Ostreich is describing here, especially in education. Can you remember an example from your own experience, or that of a co-worker, for each one of the invisible rules above? And, what might these examples look like in educational technology circles?
Although openness and transparency are desirable, I find education cultures crippled by these invisible rules, even when the best solution is to be open and transparent. It’s OK to go ahead and approve a big purchase that won’t work because of your infrastructure because it would be bad to point that out to the boss or whomever is responsible.
“If we wait for the technology to be there,” my colleague shared, “we’ll never get there.” When you consider the expensive interventions being purchased–ranging from $200K to a million dollars–doesn’t it make MORE sense to pay for the technology NOW, up front rather than buy curriculum software that won’t work?
I still remember my favorite example of this situation when I worked in a small urban school district in San Antonio, Tx. Edgewood ISD under the leadership of a new superintendent sought to put Successmaker in every school. While this meant new computers for many schools, in my school, where we had a supportive principal and a site-based committee that meant something and made decisions, we had two computer labs already being used throughout the day for project-based learning. To switch to an integrated learning system for $80K alone for a proprietary system was foolish in the eyes of the SBDM.
Yet, one of the invisible rules–“People who rock the boat will pay for it; if not now, later.”– in the District, if not more, came into effect for my principal. Although the principal listened to the site-based decision making committee and rejected Successmaker, his job was forfeit at the end of the year.
What should leadership in an education culture that embraces openness and transparency look like? Dan’s blog entry suggests that there are several characteristics of such an environment:
- Staff are encouraged to speak up and listen to each other.
- Staff are encouraged to set aside the fear that sincere engagement will cause damage, distress and repercussions or that we will experience humiliation and anger because nothing will be done about the obvious organizational problems
- Staff are encouraged to lay aside the belief that nothing can change.
In response to the scenario above–curriculum department buying tech-based interventions that won’t work well on existing technology–the following responses are possible:
- Contact the leaders that are making the purchasing decisions and point out that there are some serious obstacles that will prevent effective implementation of the proposed intervention.
- Share that you were afraid of repercussions in broaching the issue with your leadership but were motivated to do so for the good the organization and who it serves.
- Ask hard questions, not only of your leadership, but yourself–what should you have been doing and communicating that you hadn’t because you spent all your time blaming others?
- Ask yourself and others how we can work together to change the way we behave in “default education culture” and instead be more open and transparent.
Now, to be fully forthcoming, taking these 4 steps raises some doubts in my head. Is this something you can really hope to do in YOUR work environment?
As I reflect on these 4 steps to leading OUT of a default culture, I realize that there may still be repercussions.
“Sure is early but I’m glad you’re here!” I told the Jiffy Lube mechanic in front of me as he began processing my payment for a Sunday morning oil change. The 45 year old looking man in front of me was clearly tired, his face careworn and fingernails had grease under them. The fingernail on the ring finger of his left hand was broken. Though a hard worker, he exuded honesty and forthrightness…unlike other mechanics I’ve had to get my car serviced by, this one had a quiet dignity and integrity. After a bit of small talk, he shared a little more with me, finding me an avid listener.
“Yeah, I was put on morning duty. It’s tough.” Then, grudgingly, he admitted, “I used to be a manager but got demoted.” At my questionning glance, he continued, “I was told to try and sell people things they didn’t need, get a new air filter or some service their vehicle didn’t need.” As he said that, I realized that he had simply shown me my air filter but that the sales pitch hadn’t followed. It was a welcome change to not have to endure it, especially in the morning.
“Yeah,” I responded, “I hear you.” This was enough to prompt another admission.
“They [management] told me if I didn’t upsell, they’d have to demote me from manager. I told ’em, go ahead because I’m not selling people what they don’t need.”
I affirmed his integrity and shook his hand. The story, though, reminded me that we must pay dearly for what we value. That is a lesson in itself and a reminder why some still adhere to the invisible rules that Dan Ostreich writes about. I find that the payment is far less than the loss of our own values. That lesson in mind, isn’t empowering yourself to do big–and small–things in the world worth it?
Revolution is about one person at a time experiencing their own personal empowerment against an existing, deficient (small thinking) system. (p. 13)
We are the biggest obstacle that stands in the way of our doing big things in the world. We are our own worst enemies. (p. 22)
[The Think Big Manifesto] as cited by Dr. Scott McLeod, Dangerously Irrelevant
Better to keep your integrity and do what must be done than submit to the default culture to get ahead. What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org
Be sure to visit the ShareMore! Wiki.
Everything posted on Miguel Guhlin’s blogs/wikis are his personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer(s) or its clients. Read Full Disclosure
Discover more from Another Think Coming
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Another Think Coming 
MiguelThis is a beautiful blog posting and to me you've raised the right questions, particularly at the end in coming back to the dilemmas of facing repercussions for courageous expression. I feel honored that you have applied what I've written about the default culture to your own environment.We must deal constructively with our dilemmas if things are going to be any different than in the past. As long as the risks seem overwhelming and person after person goes along for fear of personal consequences or belief that action is futile, all we get is the status quo. To lead means to refuse to let fear guide our actions and to choose a different future based on a positive vision and goal. These steps — refuse and choose — are not about conquering fear or making it go away, but stepping past it or through it, "feeling the fear and doing it anyway," as the phrase goes. Essentially, not giving away our power to our fears. It just doesn't do any good for someone to say, "Well, we shouldn't have to do this — it's unfair." Yes, that person may well be right, but that doesn't change anything. And as you point out, it may well be better in the end to take the hit in order to preserve our values. Such is the nature of integrity and what it means to lead. I would add to this that if people really do reject the default culture in their hearts — without rejecting the people who are that culture — a transformation can begin, little by little. The case study you begin with is the result of years of the default culture being in power, invisible and controlling, so that the issues have become large, and the potential repercussions are equally large. But when rejection of old norms and visionary choice seep into our community and our ways of thinking and feeling, then more and more people in little ways find each other and begin to relate differently. In the beginning that may be just the discussion of which norms need to be rejected, but as time goes by, people will also want to find and share a positive vision, as well. Your blog is a fine example of this, Miguel. Openness is a revolution based on trust, and if trust's the thing, we must be in it for the long haul, learning to do our own inner and outer work as messengers and, just as important, as receivers. If this work is conscious, and if we do it together, a community naturally forms around it.As an individual, what should you do if you were involved in this case study? I believe wherever you are in an organization you are potentially in a position of leadership. So then the question must be asked, what is your leadership, really? What risks — to speak or to listen — are you actually willing to take in this situation? What feedback are you willing to get, as well as offer? What real vision of the way things could be do you hold to? How much can you accept the human beings you must work with, all of them, while serving the deeper goal and using yourself as an instrument of change? These are the questions you must ask yourself. As you respond to them, not accepting "I don't know" for an answer, a plan of personal action is likely to emerge. It doesn't matter so much if that plan is big or small so long as it is truly yours and you are genuinely thinking for yourself. If everyone changes a little, an organization can change a lot.Thanks again for your great post.Best to youDan
MiguelThis is a beautiful blog posting and to me you've raised the right questions, particularly at the end in coming back to the dilemmas of facing repercussions for courageous expression. I feel honored that you have applied what I've written about the default culture to your own environment.We must deal constructively with our dilemmas if things are going to be any different than in the past. As long as the risks seem overwhelming and person after person goes along for fear of personal consequences or belief that action is futile, all we get is the status quo. To lead means to refuse to let fear guide our actions and to choose a different future based on a positive vision and goal. These steps — refuse and choose — are not about conquering fear or making it go away, but stepping past it or through it, “feeling the fear and doing it anyway,” as the phrase goes. Essentially, not giving away our power to our fears. It just doesn't do any good for someone to say, “Well, we shouldn't have to do this — it's unfair.” Yes, that person may well be right, but that doesn't change anything. And as you point out, it may well be better in the end to take the hit in order to preserve our values. Such is the nature of integrity and what it means to lead. I would add to this that if people really do reject the default culture in their hearts — without rejecting the people who are that culture — a transformation can begin, little by little. The case study you begin with is the result of years of the default culture being in power, invisible and controlling, so that the issues have become large, and the potential repercussions are equally large. But when rejection of old norms and visionary choice seep into our community and our ways of thinking and feeling, then more and more people in little ways find each other and begin to relate differently. In the beginning that may be just the discussion of which norms need to be rejected, but as time goes by, people will also want to find and share a positive vision, as well. Your blog is a fine example of this, Miguel. Openness is a revolution based on trust, and if trust's the thing, we must be in it for the long haul, learning to do our own inner and outer work as messengers and, just as important, as receivers. If this work is conscious, and if we do it together, a community naturally forms around it.As an individual, what should you do if you were involved in this case study? I believe wherever you are in an organization you are potentially in a position of leadership. So then the question must be asked, what is your leadership, really? What risks — to speak or to listen — are you actually willing to take in this situation? What feedback are you willing to get, as well as offer? What real vision of the way things could be do you hold to? How much can you accept the human beings you must work with, all of them, while serving the deeper goal and using yourself as an instrument of change? These are the questions you must ask yourself. As you respond to them, not accepting “I don't know” for an answer, a plan of personal action is likely to emerge. It doesn't matter so much if that plan is big or small so long as it is truly yours and you are genuinely thinking for yourself. If everyone changes a little, an organization can change a lot.Thanks again for your great post.Best to youDan