“ALL In”
By Dr. Ryan Donlan
Assistant Professor
Department of Educational
Leadership
Bayh College of Education
Indiana State University
My son recently played
Superheroes, saying to some of his imaginary
compatriots, “Are you guys ‘ALL In’?”
After receiving
satisfactory response, he said, “OK … let’s DO this thing!”
A pint-sized esprit
de corps.
“ALL In” is an
interesting colloquialism, used at times by those consulting in school change,
contending that a leader’s asking “Who’s ALL In?” makes for a quick barometric
reading of who’s got your back and who’s ready to effect change.
Doesn’t it?
My doctoral
students the other evening quickly reminded me, however, that the notion of “ALL”
is contextually specific and sometimes can even cannibalize its own existence.
Let me share how
“ALL In” popped into my mind this past week.
I was driving
down I-70 near the border of Illinois and Indiana, when I thought of the foot
of snow that fell on our Wabash Valley just a week prior. During the snowfall, I
was in my own version of Heaven-on-earth with the sub-zero temperatures and the
opportunity to use my Northern Michigan snow scoop. Truth be told … I probably drove around on
area roads just enjoying the moment, when I wasn’t supposed to do so.
The weather
reminded me of my principalship in the U.P., when seeing 20 – 30 snowmobiles
parked outside my office on schooldays was more the norm than the exception. Things
didn’t need to grind to a halt with winter’s blast.
As I drove
further into Indiana, I resolved myself to the fact that the brown of snowless
winter had returned. In the parlance of this
week’s construct, it appeared that my new home was not “ALL In” to the white
stuff.
Yet to its
credit, South-Central/ Southwestern Indiana is “ALL In” to some other nice things:
A Long Gardening Season;
Excellent Schools;
A Good Cost of Living; and
Sycamore Hospitality.
It’s just not “ALL
In” to Winter. Mother Nature just doesn’t say to herself, “Let’s DO this thing!”
The positives of
being “ALL In,” thus seem, contextually specific.
Turning to
education –
How does the
notion of “ALL In” apply to those of us who are working hard to make positive
changes in schools, students, and communities?
Again, consultants have said that “ALL In” is good. I have been taught as well through example
that the best of us aren’t afraid of being “ALL In” to whatever we were
doing. My heroes, as immediate
supervisors, certainly required it.
I vetted my
metaphorical rambles with doctoral students from Northern Indiana later that
evening – “Our Need to Be ‘ALL In’ as Educators,”
-- “Hallway-to-Hallway Commitment” … “DOING Things 100%” … “Staying the
Course.” After all, aren’t Kotter
and Cohen’s (2002) first few steps in the school change process (after
Increasing Urgency) – Building the
Guiding Team before Getting the
Vision Right?
Many would
contend that leaders should be in the school business of getting those who are
“ALL In” on our teams and getting rid of those who are not. Is this a good practice? I thought so, on balance, and readied the
first volley:
I argued that when we, as educators, are “ALL
In” … we’re:
Vested in what happens;
Committed to a cause, even if
uncomfortable;
Willing to make the best of circumstance;
Standing steady, whether the ground we’re
on is firm or not;
Owning-up to who we are and what happens
around us; and
Saying, “If kids are not learning, it’s
our fault.”
I argued further that when we, as educators,
are not “ALL In” … we’re:
Putting each foot in a place that doesn’t
complement the other;
Looking too much at “next” and not enough
at “now”;
Trying to sell ownership as someone
else’s;
Attributing fault through excuses;
Looking over our shoulder, hoping a
friendly is behind;
Saying, “If kids are not learning,
something else must be up.”
The folks with
whom we work, I acknowledged, can be “ALL In” for both right reasons or wrong …
good or bad. We can’t always control for
their intentions, those hidden. Yet we
still must build that team that is “ALL In.”
Some very bright
people, however, our ISU “future docs,” quickly made some observations; they
pushed back a bit, agreeing with some points yet noting the following:
What if “ALL In” is a pseudo
concept? After all, someone’s definition
of "ALL In" could differ perceptually from another’s. For example, a superintendent’s working 80
hours per week on curriculum and test scores, at the expense of his/her
appearance at ball games, could be one example, with a Board of Education more
interested in “Regionals” than “research papers.”
What if timing could play a factor? For example, what if “ALL In” at one point in
a school’s history could impinge upon another, such as during times of sweeping
enrollment changes due to the local economy.
What if one’s being “All In” could, in actually,
be a bit unhealthy? For example, could
one’s “ALL In-ness” prevent one from achieving balance of perspective or even
the reserve of energy necessary for thoughtful leadership and good decision
making? That was their point on cannibalism above.
I did concede that
an educator’s being “All In” might be dangerous at times. It may cost us a job … maybe even a personal
relationship, such as a friendship that felt genuine. I shared with respect to those who have made team
sacrifice that I had not often heard that one’s being “All In” would cause a
loss of self-respect … or even a next chance at being “All In” on something
else. Special forces look for the those who will commit.
Yet mindful of the
excellent points that our new group made, I asked myself in the hours that
followed:
To what degree do leaders who seek-out
those “NOT In” enhance decision making?
Could compartmentalization empower
leaders to make these choices, as they most certainly will slow the pace of
forward momentum?
Does a deeper level of “ALL In” exist, which
transcends marching orders or published mission?
Could “ALL In” actuality mean “Not Being
So”? And finally …
Does “ALL In” make any sense in a
profession of complexity amidst ambiguity?
New Northern
Indiana Doctoral Student Mary Tracy may be closest to the point of how “ALL In”
pertains to those who champion tomorrow’s future, when she said, "All in
to me means caring so deeply about something that, good, bad, or indifferent,
you go the course with a sense of conviction that is driven. It does not
seem daunting, but rather, necessary."
References
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002).
The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their
organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
_________________________________________________
Dr. Ryan Donlan tries to
be ALL IN to the ISU Ed. Leadershop each week with five-minute reads for
deep-thinking educators. A heartfelt
“thanks” and WELCOME go out to our new Ph.D. Student Cohort from Northern
Indiana!! Glad you weighed-in on the
Leadershop. Please feel free in sharing
some ideas or writing of your own by contacting Dr. Donlan at (812) 237-8624 or
at ryan.donlan@indstate.edu.
No comments:
Post a Comment