The "Little Things"

-->
-->

The “Little Things”

Dr. Ryan Donlan

Assistant Professor

Department of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

I’m the world’s most inquisitive student of human relations and have a lot to learn about “Little Things.”

People fascinate me. 

I marvel at the human condition 24 hours a day, and to be quite honest, especially each weekend as I shop for groceries with my family.  Among the “Little Things” that catch my eye are …

Those who wear pajama bottoms while in public.

Those who set down their money for payment on a countertop and expect a cashier to pick it up.

Those who open packaged food and eat it on the way to the checkout counter.

Those who argue with their own children and do so more loudly when they know someone is listening.

Those who leave their carts in the middle of parking lots, ignoring the cart corrals.

Those who fail to model “people skills” for their own children as they fundraise at a grocery store’s entrance (oftentimes instead on their cell phones, complaining about their significant others, again louder if they think anyone is listening).

People fascinate me.

While at times, my wife and I might look at each other and think to ourselves … “Oh my goodness,” we realize that we undoubtedly have our own “Little Things” as well.  Mine are probably more obvious.

What’s really interesting is how those of us who should be the most educated about the human condition – WE WHO WORK IN SCHOOLS – often pass judgment on those mentioned above, yet at the same time turn a blind eye to the “Little Things” that we, ourselves, bring to work. 

Do you know any folks in your school who are oblivious to their own “Little Things”?  If they were our leaders, we would probably notice some “Little Things” in …

Those who tell building secretaries to do this or that, rather than ask.  

Those who monitor school hallways and focus on moving students along, as opposed to greeting students where they are.

Those who overuse e-mail and avoid talking with others.

Those who walk by the trash left in the hallways and fail to see it as an indictment of their leadership.

Those who put “See Me” notes in staff members’ mailboxes without explanations.

Those who hold staff meetings for the purpose of reading rules.

Those who profess that they love children but bemoan the fact that kids don’t act like adults.

Those who simply don’t have any fun while at work.

And of course … those who cannot “forgive in advance,” all those people from the grocery store above, when they show up at the school office to act like they do.

Why do these “Little Things” seem to come to my attention? 

It is because I wonder how often we model the high standards to which we hold others, paying attention to our own “Little Things” before they become big in the eyes of those looking up to us. 

____________________________________________________________________

Please consider contacting Dr. Ryan Donlan at (812) 237-8624 or at ryan.donlan@indstate.edu and let him know what we all can do more effectively to recognize the “Little Things” in leadership that are getting in the way of meeting other people’s needs and improving schools.  He would LOVE to talk!  Thanks for your time in visiting The Leadershop this week!

Dialing-Up

-->

Dialing-Up

Dr. Ryan Donlan

Assistant Professor

Department of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

Sitting next to an incredibly successful principal intern and her supervisor last Friday, I suggested that as she sunsets her year-long internship, she plays to her leadership strengths while dialing-up other attributes that mirror those of her principal.  To do so, I felt, would result in a double-barreled arsenal of leadership competency.

On the ride back to campus, I thought of the fact that I have used the notion of “dialing-up” for many years, both in word and action. I often found myself dialing-up our school’s managerial authority in student handbooks each summer; staff felt that I was always dialing-up my expectations for their performance. I even saw myself perennially dialing-up the expectations I had for myself.  Dialing-up my personal responsibilities happened a bit over ten years ago as well, going from professional bachelor to spouse, partner, and provider, much to my benefit.

Dialing-up … It has very much become a part of my leadership … of my life.  Interestingly, I hadn’t thought too much of it until that long ride back to campus.

As leaders, when we experience leadership challenges, it seems that some of us are hardwired for dialing-up, while others are more hardwired for downshifting. Many of my mentors were downshifters; they were still leaders worthy of emulation for many reasons.  I was just different, that’s all.

I think of dialing-up when problems need solving, often with fleeting thoughts of a stereo volume control dial, approximately 2 ½ inch-in-circumference on a high quality system, one that allows me to gently increase the volume of life’s music in a manner both subtle and pleasing.  Thoughts might move to my enjoyment of dialing-up Steely Dan back in the 80’s, when I had a lot more hair, a lot less weight, and very little responsibility.  Then back to the real world, thoughts might move me to a place where dialing-up represents high-stakes finesse, timing, and effect … all critical.  Yes, this strange stuff happens in my brain, as it did when I led K-12.

I have always found that when I want success, I can best reach it by dialing-up.  Others may disagree.  In fact, conventional teaching and much of our nation’s history often shares the opposite, where temperance, sacrifice, and conformity have been held in high regard.  A few of us even expect a bit of conformity in our schools.

As one example of how I was asked to conform, I spent a considerable amount of time in preservice preparation hearing that I needed to downshift certain qualities of personality that could work against me, if I were to lead.  To name a few, I was cautioned to cut back on …

1.     My outspokenness.

2.     My hyper-convictionalism.

3.     My intolerance for those who do not work incredibly hard, and

4.     My willingness to seek forgiveness over permission to get things done.

In my earlier years, my hardwiring didn’t encourage me to cut back on these qualities, and at times, my leadership style gave rise to some interesting times.  In the latter half of my two decades in K-12, I played things a bit smarter, more in line with the finesse, timing, and effect that dialing-up would allow.  Yet I didn’t sacrifice, and I really didn’t conform, too awful much.

Regarding those four polarizing aspects of my personality above …

1.     I began dialing-up an appreciation for saying less and meaning more.

2.  As I began to raise children, I began dialing-up the appreciation for listening to others’ perspectives and the benefits of decision-making through consensus.

3.     Rather than judging, I began dialing-up an ability to forgive others in advance for being a part of what I call “the human condition.”

4.     I began dialing up my appreciation for the longer-term benefits of the trust and social capital borne of open communication and transparency.

Turns out that I really didn’t have to cut back on much of anything, despite the admonitions during my training.  Dialing-up helped soften my sharp edges; it helped keep things in perspective while I maintained my healthy sense of self and identity, so that I would not lose sight of what I wanted out of life and leadership.

I think of dialing-up like I think of preparing a great meal for others.  At times when I barbecue at home, I do not really measure my ingredients (takes the fun out of it).  So I end-up adding a bit too much of this or a bit too much of that.  When that occurs, I have found that the best way to mollify the effects of the overage is to add MORE of something that will counteract (i.e. dialing-up), as opposed to cutting out what I have already put in (i.e. downshifting).  Plus … we have more to eat!

Dialing-up works in our relationships with others. 

Dahlgren and Hyatt (2007) apply a similar principle to how they suggest that students are addressed in the classroom, writing that teachers should use “start-up requests,” as oppose to “shut down requests.”  Great stuff, that dialing-up! 

Imagine that … while as leaders when we are dealing with the more difficult people at work, we could be dialing-up a bit more patience, as opposed to downshifting a big batch of anger or frustration.

What I like best about the notion of dialing-up is that as leaders, we can reframe how we ask others to adapt and change to meet the demands of our professional environments. Dialing-up allows us to encourage folks to access qualities that they already have within arm’s reach, with the result -- a better “mix” of ready-for-primetime persona … skills for success that are personally meaningful, socially responsible, and economically productive.

So what’s the take-away? 

As we work to make a difference providing leadership in K-12 education, let us help others play to their strengths, resisting the temptation to shut them down while dialing-up opportunities that best position everyone for success.

References

Dahlgren, R., & Hyatt, J. (2007). Time To Teach: Encouragement, empowerment, and excellence in  every classroom. Hayden Lake, ID: The Center for Teacher Effectiveness.

_____________________________________________________________________ 

Speaking of dialing-up, why don’t you consider dialing-up Dr. Donlan at (812) 237-8624 or let your fingers do the walking at ryan.donlan@indstate.edu.  He would love to share ideas with you, anytime!

An "I" for an "I"

-->
-->

An “I” for an “I”

Dr. Ryan Donlan

Assistant Professor

Department of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

Oftentimes as leaders we must do some unpleasant things … things that keep us up at night.

It’s our job. 

One of these unpleasantries is “pulling the trigger” on staff members who are not pulling their weight.  A method for doing so, one that I have been philosophically wrestling with recently, is our topic this week – An “I” for an “I.”  

I’m interested in how this approach resonates with principle-centered leaders. 

Maybe with this week's five-minute read, I’ll spark a bit of a debate between those more in sync with the leadership paradigm of ethical relativism and others more in tune with the black and white perspectives of moral absolutism (for those who enjoy such constructs). One can only hope.

Anyhow ...

I had to pull the trigger a few times in my career; it was uncomfortable. 

I was trained to do it with speed, dispatch, and calculable forethought.  I didn’t enjoy my training or the experience.  To this day, the thought of firing, or encouraging the resignation of,  someone who has a mortgage, a family to support, pride to maintain, and a reputation to uphold, is unsettling for me. 

Maybe I’m just a softy.

Termination, I realize, is a burden that leadership must bear in order to protect students from educational neglect. 

I get that.   Research demonstrates that having two bad teachers in a row adversely affects a child’s future (Peske & Haycock, 2006).  Having one is pretty inexcusable, in and of itself.  It reflects poorly on leadership.

Regarding the mechanics involved in pulling the trigger – Those who have done so might agree that firing those who are jerks is actually easier than firing those who are nice, yet incompetent.  The latter are oftentimes bad fits for circumstance –  some shouldn’t have made it through pre-service education; others have been ill assigned.  Most are nice, from what I have found, which makes everything even more difficult.

In the worst-case scenario, we, OURSELVES, made the mistake of hiring incompetent folks in the first place.  Some of us do so because of teacher shortages in certain content areas; others of us just get busy and thus, sloppy.  We create the problem. 

Once leaders set in motion a chain of events by hiring those not up-to-snuff, we bring about nothing but dissatisfaction and heartache.  Newcomers to our schools begin to sink roots in our communities -- they shop at our stores, attend our churches, and support our Little Leagues.  They bring their own children to school; their kids play with our kids. Some even play Frisbee in the dog park and volunteer at the holiday soup kitchen.  However, once we find that they are incompetent or ill suited for their roles, we have to clean up our own mess, at their expense. They need to go.

In these instances, nice guys really DO finish last. 

The process of removal, of pulling the trigger itself, is certainly not for the faint of heart.  The “how” of the process has caught my attention … at least to the degree that I’m questioning one such method -- a cookbook for firing those who are incompetent (nice or not), long a part of administrative lore – An “I” for an “I.”  

It’s nasty business.  It’s not nice.  Yet, it may be necessary, as we fight to liberate our children from mediocrity and poor performance in the classroom.  

Wars aren't pleasant, are they?

An "I" for an "I" involves a leader’s turning an employee’s INCOMPETENCE (“I”) into INSUBORDINATION (“I”).  It is managerial hardball, played barehanded. Only one team gets to bat.  Only one team gets the “out.”

The model suggests that when leaders are dealing with a situation of incompetence, they may address it as such if they wish to be considerate about it, but simultaneously, they begin setting the stage to reframe anything short of "immediate turn-around" as Insubordination.  Once complete, termination becomes much easier.

Justification for this approach rests upon the assumption that removals based on incompetence might be too cumbersome, too risky of being defined as subjective, and too prone to potential reversal.

The suggested ethical justification for An “I” for an “I” purportedly pertains to higher-order considerations for children enrolled in the classrooms of those incompetent, and thus deserving of “quick work” on the removal.

In the playbook for An “I” for an “I,” school leaders would:

1.     Consult with a school attorney and the superintendent before doing ANYTHING.

2.     Establish standards of performance for the employee using behaviorally measurable criteria. 

3.     Advise the employee of these criteria.

4.     Direct the employee, both verbally and in writing, to adhere to those standards of performance within a specified time frame.

5.     Allow reasonable administrative support (and time) for the employee to reach those standards of performance, those that could be expected of one similarly certificated.

6.     Measure whether or not those standards were attained in the time period.

7.     Next, do one of two things: (a) witness immediate improvement or more than likely (b) document instances of performance NOT meeting those standards.

8.     And ... since a directive was given to perform up to certain criteria, the failure by the employee to do so is, in effect, INSUBORDINATION.

9.    If this determination is made, consult appropriately with those who review your processes (and your documentation) before pulling any triggers (In other words, CYA … “Call Your Attorney”). 

10.  Pull the trigger if needed*.

*As lore suggests, oftentimes after an “I” becomes an “I,” the need to “fire” is actuality avoided, as those about to be affected pen a quick letter of resignation, while all involved parties promise “no name calling” as desks are cleared and keys are returned. 

All’s good, right? 

Well, not so much, if another community’s children get your castaway ... not so much if that person has a family to support.

You know, as an alternative to this approach, we as leaders could ensure that we are doing our own better-than-incompetent jobs of hiring folks in the first place, avoiding all of this hardball and consternation.

References

Peske, H. G., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality. Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust.

___________________________________________________________________ 

Dr. Ryan Donlan is interested in your thoughts, opinions, and feelings.  Please share your perspectives on the ethics involved in An “I” for an “I,” by contacting him at ryan.donlan@indstate.edu or (812) 237-8624.  Thanks for taking 5 minutes for a read!

Playing Defense

-->

Playing Defense

Dr. Ryan Donlan

Assistant Professor

Department of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

We’ve heard for years, “The best defense is a good offense.” The opposite is also true in school leadership.

I think back many years to my first principalship. As I did not have an assistant, I would select my social studies teacher, Chris, to pinch-hit when I had obligations out-of-building.

When preparing Chris for the role, I asked him to keep in mind an acronym, SODA (Safety, Order, Discipline, and Attendance), as SODA comprised his four priorities as my substitute (in that order) while I was away.  Nowadays, I would probably add two additional letters to the SODA’s tail end, “TL” – Teaching and Learning. 

This week, I would like to pose another way of looking at the acronym, beyond that of a substitute principal’s job description – more in line with notions of leadership preparation and the way we define a principal’s current role. 

As I ponder SODA-TL’s conceptual properties, I envision a hierarchy of institutional needs, which I represent below in a conceptual model:

As with many hierarchies, items more toward the top depend on those nearer the bottom for their existence and sustainability. This hierarchy applies to school leadership as follows:

School safety is foundational.  Its necessity is inarguable. If we cannot ensure that children will return home each evening unharmed (physically, emotionally, etc.), then we should not be in the schoolhouse business. 

Resting just above our platform of school safety is the notion of order, “a must” for both effectiveness and efficiency of operation. Roles and responsibilities cannot be carried out in the midst of chaos or confusion. Once order is achieved, the institution can work toward providing for a higher, yet still a mid-level need, discipline.

Discipline is both extrinsic and intrinsic, ideally influencing everyone to do what is appropriate to his or her role.  Extrinsic factors involve a natural follow-through on consequences for choices made (i.e. write-up’s for unprofessional behavior or conversely, bonuses for exceptional performance). Intrinsic factors, on the other hand, would include the even-more-important qualities of one’s being self-directed, pro-social, or professionally helpful.  When those in schools are disciplined, another mid-level need that rests within our hierarchy can flourish: attendance.

Not much needs to be said about attendance.  The notion of Must Be Present to Win certainly applies. Positive attendance provides its own platform for other, higher-level needs in education, starting with effective teaching, as students are better ensured continuity of instruction when teachers have continuity of student audience. 

Finally, resting atop and dependent upon quality teaching in our hierarchy is learning.

Here’s the bottom line:

We cannot assume SODA-TL will just happen in schools.  This hierarchy needs defending each and every day, as our hierarchical homeostasis is vulnerable to forces both from within and without the schoolhouse walls.

Are we ensuring that someone is always on hand to play defense?

With recent trends in what we demand of leaders, I question whether many see defense as relevant.  Principals are now required to play much more offense (translated: tending to the teaching and learning atop the hierarchy).  In such, they’re a bit more removed from the defensive line.  What is perplexing at times is that in leadership preparation circles, the entire notion of defense is at times, depicted as a lesser entity. 

How?

Some make it their mission to regale a principal’s role in management as antiquated, a product of the bygone eras of good-ole’ boys and one’s prerequisite as a football coach (this article’s metaphors notwithstanding).  Isn’t the reality of today’s situation that the game of the principalship is more complex than ever, requiring an all-hands-on-deck approach? 

Further, isn’t a principal’s game one that requires a “both/and” approach, as opposed to that of an “either/or” – the need for offense/Instructional leadership AND defense/Building Management?  

Aren’t both equally important in winning?

Instead of denigrating a principal’s role as building manager, let us instead envision the offense and defense of the principalship as partner constructs resting in different places on the same, all-important hierarchy of institutional need? 

Doing so would allow us better to organize our resources to give the time and attention to foundational needs (SODA), so as to allow higher-order needs (TL) to be met.

I can’t think of any losers in that game.

____________________________________________

Dr. Ryan Donlan would like to reframe any contemporary indictments of a school leader’s “Building Management,” and as part of this, is laying the groundwork to have a discussion about the importance of Assistant Principals in future weeks.  If you have any thoughts you would like to share, please don’t hesitate to contact him at (812) 237-8624 or at ryan.donlan@indstate.edu.

Cabin Fever

Cabin Fever

By Dr. Ryan Donlan

Assistant Professor

Department of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

Have you noticed that some people are sad this time of year?  Quite SAD, actually.  Yet given their condition, they still come to school each day and depend on our leadership.

Physicians and pharmaceutical companies call this condition, Seasonal Affective Disorder, also referred to as the mid-winter blues or another name we used when I was principal-ing in the U.P. of Michigan: Cabin Fever.  Cabin fever kicks in around this time each year – when a chill’s in the air, the sun’s not shining, and when things just aren’t quite green enough.

Maintaining staff and student enthusiasm for teaching and learning is a bit cumbersome during this season.  We find that our short days sometimes seem lengthier than our longer nights: staff fuses get short, office referrals get long, and students don’t seem to be buying what we’re selling.

What do we do?

As leaders, we try our best to play “Doctor Mom” or “Doctor Dad.” We make quick, prudent diagnoses of those who are SAD, offering prescriptions to “fix ‘em up.” 

Easy as that … Right?

Well, as a leader, I didn’t always think so. 

I tried all sorts of these motivational promotions from companies all-too-willing to flood my desk with catalogues of mailbox stuffers, happy-land posters, and workday-well wishes for the staff announcements.  Atta-boy’s and Rah Rah’s can last a quarter or two on a game clock, but typically not a quarter or two on a school calendar.  They didn’t work for me all too well.

Wanting to involve greater minds than mine for ideas as I composed this short-read, I reached out to friends in the Twitter universe and found that they offered more creative ideas for keeping high the energy level in schools.  A leader’s meaningful, genuine efforts to recognize, to reward, and to accentuate the positive were first on our colleagues’ lists.  They suggested that by finding those magic moments, making the most of “the present,” and asking staff what they, themselves, needed to get through this mid-winter stretch, leaders would make headway.  The key, my colleagues felt, was in listening to others and of course, smiling … authentically smiling.  I would agree wholeheartedly.  I certainly smiled when I heard the ideas for staff snowball fights and morning floor hockey. 

Through these and other conversations, along with the pleasure of reading a few excellent books, I think I have uncovered the most important part of what we as leaders must do in our schools to help others get through through this season’s Cabin Fever …

We must diagnose and cure our own. 

Yes, we must take care of ourselves first; yet, we often do not. 

We’re often in denial. 

Just like parents, sometimes when we have a fever (Cabin Fever, or otherwise), we stoically plow forward, not under any circumstances letting anyone else know we’re not well.   Yet, is this really doing anyone, any good? 

This week, I received a request to write a conference abstract for one of my upcoming presentations. As I put some thought into what I wanted to say, I thought of our Tweets this week and the Leadershop as well, and entitled it, When the masks drop, put YOURS on first. 

Here is what I wrote:

[Our] role is more of a calling than a job … more a mission than a position … in fact, a true labor of love.  As human service professionals, we spend an inordinate amount of time and energy operating altruistically, thinking of others before we think of ourselves, don’t we?  Yet, are we truly “helping” those who depend upon us to the degree that we can, when we do just that?!?  Airline personnel would remind us that if turbulence is present and the oxygen masks drop, we should affix OUR OWN, before fastening those of our children.  This is based upon the premise that unless we are first fully capable of helping others through a clear body and mind, then we are “no help at all.”  [There exists] the unapologetic necessity of focusing first on meeting our own needs while working in the helping professions, in that by doing so, we will be more effectively positioned to help others with theirs.  Being self-ful is the key that pays itself forward.

The cure for Cabin Fever? 

Ironically, might I suggest that in the midst of moving forward with the many good ideas that our colleagues on Twitter suggest, we should first ensure we are operating on all cylinders. Putting on our own oxygen masks first is not selfish; it is self-ful.

We can then navigate more effectively through our cabins, until we can open the windows and let-in a little fresh air, whereupon spring fever will bring about the exciting need for an entirely different prescription regimen.

_____________________________________________________________________ 

Dr. Ryan Donlan studies school wellness and would hope that you should share ideas on how you apply your own oxygen masks with the intent of being self-ful.  If you would like to share, will you please contact him at (812) 237-8624 or at ryan.donlan@indstate.edu?  Thanks for visiting the Leadershop!