Archive for the ‘Educational Leadership’ Category

Managing or Leading?

Posted: January 25, 2012 in Educational Leadership

” . . . .leadership always involves a relationship as contrasted with management which has to do with processes and systems . . .”

This quote is from Michael Maccoby who I found on this blog

http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/09/michael-maccoby-on-managing-vs-leading.html.  I have really been intrigued by this simple truth and the fact that our educational systems are full of managers who need to become leaders.  There is a distinct challenge in the 21st century economy to promote innovation and creativity – both of which cannot necessarily be measured.  The industrial age focused on managing resources and measuring results – and if you couldn’t measure it, there were no results.  While there are many great leaders of the industrial age, the primary skill set was the ability to manage people and resources.  Productivity was measured by the quantity of results and the quality of the product.  This industrial paradigm still is pervasive in our educational system structure.  We are focused on measuring “tangible” outcomes, managing resources (people, time, materials, budgets) and maintaining traditions that are ineffective and do not allow for innovation and creativity to be fostered.

Leadership is all about relationships. Leadership fosters innovation and creativity at all levels.  Just take a look at the key attributes of an effective leader from Jim Murray.  As education professionals are we leading innovation or managing resources? or are we doing both? I won’t say it’s an “either/or” situation but a “both/and” situation.  Unfortunately, I strongly feel the balance is skewed in the direction of “management” vs. “leadership”.  We should be promoting and training Principals as Leaders, Teachers as Leaders, Students as Leaders, etc. and the professional development should focus on the skill set of the 21st century leader.

Think about the “classroom management” training many of us have been through.  There is a strong focus on “management” techniques vs. the empowerment of critical thinkers who foster innovation and creativity.  Teachers are having to break the mold and jump outside of the box of process and procedure in order to affect students’ learning and make them enjoy the learning experience.  I love this quote from Professor Maccoby:

” . . .this(meaning successful outcomes) can’t be achieved by management (tactics) alone at a time of constant change when people need inspiration, a sense of purpose and enthusiasm to achieve their goals.”

Take a look at these 2 links regarding the differences b/w managers and leaders.

http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/crosscuttings/leadership_attributes.html

–  http://www.twitpic.com/yye37

I would also suggest reading Bob Sutton’s blog on Leadership Vs. Management.  He draws a very accurate picture of the “both/and” approach to this topic.  My point in all of this is that you can’t focus on managing resources vs. leading innovation.  The workplace has quickly become an agile, ever-changing, and continuously improving ecosystem while education has struggled just to keep up.  Why? I feel it is because we are still steeped in traditional industrial “management” practices of command/control/produce/measure vs. fostering the innovation and creativity in our schools.

Some edu leaders to follow on Twitter:

@johnccarver
@21stcenturyprincipal
@graingered
@web20classroom

So, are you leading innovation or managing resources? or both?

Doctors prescribe medicine based upon their knowledge of diseases, viruses, illnesses, etc.  They tend to know what is best to combat the sickness.  The only true choice we have in the matter is which doctor or in some cases (based upon past experiences) which forms of the medicines we’d prefer.  Ultimately, we are prescribed the remedy with little choice but to accept it as it will lead to getting well.

In 2004, America seemed to be in a medical malpractice “crisis“.  With all the concerns arising from this, America began to (and still may) question the prescriptions (treatment/diagnosis, etc) coming from medical providers.  Now, I am not here to debate the quality of our medical practices, but merely to set the stage for the bigger context of prescription vs. subscription.

Enter the “net” . . .

Americans began their trek to research medical advice and gain a better “education” prior to determining how they would proceed with treatment and/or at minimum who to go to (aka “choice”).  Sites such as http://www.webmd.com/ and http://www.healthline.com/ emerged to provide education to Americans on medical and health related issues.  Thus began the “subscription” approach to medicine.  Open content helped to inform people of their options/choices.  People “subscribe” (not pay per se, but “choose” to get info from them) to these sites to gain knowledge and feel more like they have a voice in their medical/health options. As Americans wish to become better informed and have more control over their medical/health choices, this trend has begun to invade education.  I use the term invade simply to imply that some may not want to see this trend, but realistically, it’s here, regardless.

The traditional industrial model that our education system is built on is steeped in a “prescriptive” philosophy.  We rely on politicians, educational leaders and teachers to basically tell us what we need to know in order to become productive citizens in today’s economy.  “Here is what you need to know . . .”, “Here is how you will learn it . .”, “You need to be doing it this way . . .”, I could go on and on right?  This philosophy is also seen in our higher ed structures as well.  We prescribe to teachers a model for how they should teach, what they should teach, etc. with very little consideration for their voice/input.  Even the PD models in many schools still reek of  “this is what you should know/be doing . . . ” and teachers aren’t given ample time/opportunity to provide feedback and more importantly, input for change.  Our students feel like school is “boring” because they have very little choice in how and what they learn. Teachers feel like because of standardized testing, they are told what to teach and how to teach it.  This trickles down and students become very disengaged.  Many of us may feel like we know what is best and that we should “prescribe” the what, when, where and how of education. But if we look at the trends . . .personalized education where students have choices and can “subscribe” to the what, when, where and how; is a model that has merit.

We are in the “subscription” mode as learners. We choose who to follow (subscribe to) on Twitter, we choose which RSS feeds we want to glean our knowledge from, and we set our preferences for style, medium, etc.  A great group of though leaders is working to define models of “learning circles” for teachers – follow #LCU hashtag for more.  These models point to the fact that learners (students, teachers, etc.) want to subscribe to knowledge versus have it prescribed for them. Take a look at some other national initiatives in open source “subscriptive” learning that may prove to be models for educational transformation.

MIT – http://chronicle.com/article/MIT-Will-Offer-Certificates-to/130121/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Floating University – http://www.floatinguniversity.com
The Conversation – http://theconversation.edu.au

While I don’t see an immediate trend to Americans subscribing to their own treatments/medicines, I do think we’re moving to become much more informed on the “what, when, where & how” to proceed.  As for education, students are demanding the options and want a more subscription based approach to their learning.  Does this devalue the role of the teacher? principal? education administrator? Not at all . . . I think our role(s) will just have to be more along the lines of a marketeer . . .we have to have product and “stuff” that makes students want to subscribe to what we have to offer. Guiding the learning still resides behind all of the open source “stuff”, it’s call curation.  We are becoming curators of knowledge versus prescriptive “owners” of all the knowledge.