TL Under Construction

One of the most important things I’ve learned facilitating the decision making working group is that there are a lot of tools out there to make the job easier. The reason decisions haven’t been made properly in the past has a lot to do with the casual approach taken to them. A typical pattern for making a decision has been something like this:

1. A problem is identified and brought up at a meeting.
2. Everyone tells their story about it or their take on it.
3. There is some discussion about the last time they dealt with it and what didn’t work
4. Some suggestions for what to do about it are offered and immediately criticised or dismissed
5. A suggestion is finally offered that hasn’t been tried or is the only/last one people can think of that sounds reasonable
6. A vote is taken – may or may not be unanimous
7. The decision is minuted
8. A person to do it may or may not be appointed
9. The committee moves on to the next item on the list

Several problems exist with this method but “The One About the Hammer” is the problem I want to examine in this blog entry. As Harvey, Bearley and Corkrum state:

Information tends to be wild and incomplete; individuals have widely different needs and demands; and each situation varies in its context and consequences. (2002, P. 51)

Structuring tools or devices are available to help focus, clarify and organise what we (or any group) are trying to accomplish. Being focussed, clear and organised is especially important  when situations are complex because the solutions will likely be complex too. Simple discussion will not sort out the complex issue, only waste time going in circles.

So far I have used two structuring tools outlined in The Practical Decision Maker: Snow Cards and the Discrepancy Analysis tool (Harvey, Bearley, & Corkrum, 2002, pp. 135-136, 220-222). Each of these tools has a very specific and separate function and it is important to use the right tool for the job.

Snow Cards assisted the working party to group the issues for clarification and focus the issues into a manageable number of categories. From it we were able to define our desired conditions quite clearly. The Discrepancy Analysis tool has given us a clearer picture of where exactly our shortfalls lie within the areas determined. I am now preparing to use the Cause/Effect Fishbone tool to assist the group to find the causes for the gaps in the conditions and hopefully find/ define a root problem to the situation.

I am finding a strength and integrity in the decision making process I’ve not encountered before from using these tools. But one member of the group has recently expressed annoyance (via email) with the structuring devises and the amount of time the process is taking. They are finding it ‘tedious’ and want to ‘get on with it’.

The authors do warn,

There are two classic errors that decision makers commit when working through the decision process. The first is to assume that decision making can be completed without the aid of structuring devices. The second is to use such devises too much or inappropriately (Harvey, Bearley and Corkrum, 2002, p.51)

They then discuss the use of tools such as brainstorming as a crutch when no one knows what else to do (When All Else Fails, Use a Hammer) and about using tools that don’t fit the job (Using a Sledgehammer to Put in a Finishing Nail) but they don’t define what they mean by ‘use too much’. Is using a structuring tool for each step too much? Going back to the analogy of The Hammer, am I using a set of hammers when I don’t need a hammer all the time? I don’t feel that that is so. I do feel that they tried to build ‘the thing’ without tools in the past, now it’s time to try the carpenter’s approach.

______________________

http://www.morguefile.com/archive/?display=42166&

Harvey, T. R., Bearley, W. L., & Corkrum, S. M. (2002). The practical decision maker: A handbook for decision making and problem solving in organizations. Oxford: The Scarecrow Press. (Original work published 1997)

after a three-week term break, the school working party is back to regular weekly meetings in pursuit of defining a problem.

You can read about the first meeting here and the second meeting here

Last week, the group decided on desired conditions for each of the seven areas that they identified as needing examination. Below are the desired condition for one of those areas — communications.

COMMUNICATIONS

• Two-way
• Regular
• Clearly articulated
• Easily understood
• Timely
• Open
• Within consistent communication process/es

It was interesting to note that the group failed to identify “effective” as one of the desired conditions. I wondered if this was partly an effect of running the meeting too long. Fresh minds are needed for clarity and creativity, two vital ingredients when a group is looking for quality within a process.

The task for the third meeting was to determine the size of the gaps between the desired conditions and the actuality. For this task, The Practical Decision Maker recommended using a Discrepancy Analysis tool. Because the working party consists of 5 teachers, 4 school council members, and one office staff member, I decided to create a Discrepancy Analysis survey to fill out instead of going over each item orally (very time-consuming). I also thought this might eliminate some issues with members who are overbearing in their opinions. For each condition of each area, I created a question asking for the desired state to be quantified and then the actual state to be quantified as the authors’ suggested (p. 136). I constructed this survey using Survey Monkey, a Web 2.0 tool for creating online surveys.

Here are a couple of example questions constructed from the desired conditions recorded above for Communication:

Some post meeting thoughts:

• This was the first meeting we’ve had at the school and there was a definite difference in the behaviour of the teachers. It was difficult to bring them to order to begin the meeting. They were sorting out classroom items and generally distracted with their own little tasks throughout the meeting. Whether this was solely to do with the environment or also a general relaxing into the group, I am not sure. I will keep this in mind and try to have the meetings away from the school. And I will make mention of prompt starts in the next agenda email.

• Although we went over the agenda at the beginning of the meeting, I need to emphasize more which step we are at in the decision making process. I think at times they forget in the process of the task-at-hand. We are only working to come up with a problem definition at this point. Members still want to jump to “then we should … ” statements although they then say, “Oh, I guess that’s a solution isn’t it.”  Call me cynical but I am the tiniest suspicious that this is a tactic used on the part of one individual to influence the process. My answer to the above statement last night was, “No, it’s not a solution, but we’re not up to taking suggestions yet.”
• I am taking these more relaxed behaviours as signs that group evolution, Stage Two — Storming is on the horizon.

The authors of The Practical Decision Maker claim discrepancy analysis is precise in “identifying gaps between where we want to be and where we are” (Harvey, Bearley and Corkrum, 2002, p. 54). Ideally this would be true, but when groups are made up of people with vested interests, the objectivity suffers. The problem definition will only be as good as the group will allow it to be. The teachers in this group failed to record a gap in any of the teaching areas and as they outweigh the parent/council stakeholders, this will not help to strongly focus on any aspect of teaching that needs improvement.

I am finding the role of facilitator to be one of delicate balance. I want the group to make the best decisions it can (so I did point out they had missed ‘effective’ in their desired outcomes). On the other hand, they need to own the process and if I appear to be influencing too much I can see one of several things happening:

1. They see me as pushing an agenda and lose faith in me as a leader
2. Ownership of the problem and the solution is diluted so no action comes of the decision making process
3. The process is biased by me (and who knows how clearly I’m seeing the SITNA?)

At the next meeting we will be looking for causes for the gaps and to perhaps begin defining our problem.

________________________

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97968921@N00/537189487/

Harvey, T. R., Bearley, W. L., & Corkrum, S. M. (2002). The practical decision maker: A handbook for decision making and problem solving in organizations. Oxford: The Scarecrow Press.

———————

POST SCRIPT

Although I may not have sounded entirely happy with the subjectivity of this step in the problem-solving process, Eunson (1987, p. 272) argues that two dimensions are necessary for an effective decision: it’s quality and its ability to attract the acceptance of the people who are related to the decision. I accept this.

Eunson, B. (1987). Decision-making and problem-solving. In Behaving: Managing yourself and others (pp. 268-298). Roseville NSW: McGraw-Hill.

This working party meeting happened just before the school term break and so while it was minuted, I haven’t had a chance to reflect on it yet. Better do that now as the next meeting is in a couple of days.

This was the second meeting of the working party that I’m taking through the Six Core Steps decision-making process as outlined in The Practical Decision Maker

You can read about the first meeting here

I’d adopted what Beck & Yeager (1994, p. 196) define as Style 1Leadership, Directing. This was important as I needed to come across as strong and committed from the beginning. This group consists of school council members, the principal and teachers and I have seen meetings with this group get hijacked and side-railed in the past. The group needs to remain focussed and see real progression as we are working through problems that have been worked through before but not solved.

Expectations were made set out at the first meeting.They now must be maintained. I have been insisting on RSVP emails so that attendance is reinforced as an expectation. This is working so far. Twelve out of fourteen members attended the second meeting (one was overseas, the other home with an unwell child).

I did stuff up on a couple of the expectations we set and I hope this has not damaged my reputation as a leader too much. We forgot to read the list of positive norms before starting the meeting. This is important in maintaining a positive mindset for this group and I slipped over into a democratic leadership style (Goleman as cited in Fullan, 2004, p. 43)!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Wingdings; panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:2; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 268435456 0 0 -2147483648 0;} @font-face {font-family:”Arial Unicode MS”; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1 -369098753 63 0 4129279 0;} @font-face {font-family:”\@Arial Unicode MS”; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1 -369098753 63 0 4129279 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} h1 {mso-style-next:Normal; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; page-break-after:avoid; mso-outline-level:1; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-font-kerning:0pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic;} h2 {margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-outline-level:2; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:”Arial Unicode MS”; font-weight:bold;} h3 {mso-style-next:Normal; margin-top:12.0pt; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:3.0pt; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; page-break-after:avoid; mso-outline-level:3; font-size:13.0pt; font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; font-weight:bold;} h4 {margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-outline-level:4; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Arial Unicode MS”; font-weight:bold;} p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText {margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; font-style:italic;} p.MsoBodyTextIndent, li.MsoBodyTextIndent, div.MsoBodyTextIndent {margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:27.0pt; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Arial Unicode MS”;} span.quoteclass {mso-style-name:quoteclass;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:626159427; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:1771439356 -1674406838 1041029106 -142714668 1301049346 -1651578008 2038718800 -817327298 666539128 1192899508;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l1 {mso-list-id:630280981; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:42493368 -783401794 -673007824 1032766642 1787857446 1386763846 682638634 -618602652 -1879292618 -1278322042;} @list l1:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l2 {mso-list-id:2097744365; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:-456472368 2000710978 -252560628 -1177257084 -719659800 1170232100 1578738 -1506106568 252877552 -1790790780;} @list l2:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} ol {margin-bottom:0cm;} ul {margin-bottom:0cm;} –>  too soon by letting them persuade me into allowing the meeting to run overtime.

They wanted to finish the task they were doing,but I won’t let that happen again. I think the group was over-tired by then and not functioning at their best. I also think the strict time-frame of two hours per meeting was an important promise (on my part) that this process won’t turn into mind-numbing marathon meetings that don’t accomplish anything (a common past occurrence).

The first task for the group at this meeting was to begin defining the problem. We went over the four categories of problems: New Venture, Short-Fall, Improvement and Opportunity (p. 25). And I was surprised (given the circumstances) that there was not quick consensus that there is a short-fall problem. Some members expressed the opinion that they would like to look at the problem more positively — as an opportunity not a short-fall (the mind-set session obviously worked). Luckily, the group is still very much in a forming stage as described by Tuckman (as cited by Law & Glover, 2000, p.75) Beck and Yeager, (1994, p. 189). The group is polite and formal, receptive to being directed and seeking clarification and we were able to finally agree that the SITNA was a threat to the viability of the school (p.40) and must be addressed so, in fact, it is not an opportunity but a short-fall.

The next step in the case of a short-fall SITNA was to identify desired conditions. I chose to try a device recommended by Harvey and Bearley (2001, pp. 220-222) called Snow Card structuring because the SITNA involved several issues and needed focussing. Snow Cards allows for members to generate a number of ideas and then they are grouped to narrow the list and more clearly define the desired conditions. Thirty-two cards were generated and then sorted into seven categories. This categorising did not take too long and I think the complexity of the problem was again made clear when it became apparent that there were seven areas that the members felt were part of the SITNA (perhaps an indication that they are not yet to the root of the problem).

The most time-consuming part was describing as accurately a possible what the ‘desired conditions that they want the solution to achieve” would look like for each area. This is where we ran overtime and the quality of problem solving/creativity deteriorated.

I really did not know what to expect when using the Snow Card structuring devise and was very impressed with the quality of description the group produced and how we were able to combine the ideas into categories. It feels cohesive, it feels on track. I think the group felt the same.

____________________________________________

Photo from: http://www.morguefile.com/archive/?display=103621&

Beck, J., & Yeager, N. (1994). Making teams work: An underused window of opportunity. In The leader’s window: Mastering the four styles of leadership to build high-performing teams (pp. 183-206). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Harvey, T. R., Bearley, W. L., & Corkrum, S. M. (2002). The practical decision maker: A handbook for decision making and problem solving in organizations. Lanham, ML: Scarecrow Press.

Law, S., & Glover, D. (2000). Leading effective teams. In Educational leadership and learning: Practice, policy and research (pp. 71-86). Buckingham: Open University Press.

I am still waiting for the day when I will have to pull a (3x-5) out of my pocket and multiply it with a (2x-1). I keep one in my bag in case of emergencies – thankfully I haven’t had to use it yet; its been so long I’m not sure if it’s even any good any more. Do polynomials go off? I honestly wouldn’t know – I never understood what polynomials were although I apparently knew enough to get a pass in high school algebra.

Fullan’s (2004) Leading in a Culture of Change asks the reader to consider the statement “Information is not pertinent until people decide what it means and why it matters.” Also to consider “It is a mistake to focus on information rather than its use.” Oh how I wish someone had explained that to my maths teachers way back then. If only they had thought to spend time sharing the ’secret’ of the why as well as the how. Without a use, the information on how to do the procedures never turned into learning, I gained no knowledge from the time spent in class.

Education is now making the shift from an emphasis on distributing facts (information) to creating and sharing knowledge. And creating a culture of sharing is one of the jobs of a leader. Fullan suggests that the conditions have to be right in order for this to occur. Quality relationships is the key, of course.

What interested me the most in this chapter  was Fullan’s take on the relationship between good relationships and a culture of knowledge sharing.  He cited Dixon’s observation that

… the exchange of knowledge happens only in organizations that have a noncompetitive or a collaborative culture. It follows that the first thing you have to do is to fix the culture and then get people to share. But I have found that it’s the other way around. If people begin sharing ideas about issues they see as really important, the sharing itself creates a learning culture. I have, of course, inserted an important caveat in that sentence: “about issues they see as really important” (Dixon as cited in Fullan, 2004, p. 124).

It interested me to compare it with an earlier blog quote I had

… many persons express the conviction that effective human relationships improve communication far more than communication improves relationships. (Savage, 1989, p. 109)

Do they contradict each other? If so which is right? What needs to be tackled first; relationship-building or communication/sharing?

Its one of those cyclic issues and perhaps that’s one of the reasons that collaborative cultures don’t develop easily. No one knows if its OK to start or where to start. In fact my own experience (tacit knowledge!) has been exactly that, no one wants to be the first. This is one of the places in which TLs can really take a lead. Someone has to break the ice, step up to the plate, lay their cards on the table and we have the training to do it.

______________________________

http://www.flickr.com/photos/salmon/463619313/

Fullan, M. (2004). Building relationships. In Leading in a culture of change: Personal action guide and workbook (pp. 77-114). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Savage, W. (1989). Communication: Process and problems. In C. Riches & C. Morgan (Eds.), Human resource management in education (pp. 103-119). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Like a Siamese twin Faith must come with Hope. Sergiovanni (2005) defines faith as the set of assumptions people make when they have hope in something. And he points out that our faith/assumptions will suggest pathways to be taken.

Individuals with high hope possess goals, find pathways to these goals, navigate around obstacles, and develop agency to reach their goals (McDermott, Pedrotti, Edwards, and Houske, as cited in Sergiovanni, 2005, p. 81).

So here’s something I have faith in (a project I’ve begun work on at school) –

• the more children read or are read to, the better readers they will become

What is my Goal –

• to turn every one of the children at our school into a ‘reader’; each student, a child who enjoys books and stories no matter what their literacy level is.

What are my pathways?

• I’m working from the lower end of the school up. A large amount of good stories and books (fiction and non-fiction) are needed to hook students from Prep and build on their love of reading from there.
• I’m working with the Prep teacher Wendy to start on a Power Readers book bag system as suggested by David Loertscher.
• I’m going to talk to the parents of the Preps, along with their teacher. We’ll talk to them about the importance of reading, we’ll spell out the book bag program, we’ll pass on the information from Mem Fox’s website and Steven Krashen’s studies.
• I’m going to excite the kids by showing them new acquisitions on a regular basis, by listening to what they want to read and following up with requests quickly. I’ll continue to read and talk about books with them when they come to their weekly library session.

What are the obstacles?

• budget restraints (I’ll make picture books one of my collection development priorities in next years budget and try to get the parent support group on board)
• parents who don’t have time/inclination to read to their children (education, constant reinforcement needed, make it matter to them)

How will I measure my efficacy?

• books are being taken out by the child on a regular basis on their card
• I see them reading a book in ‘library’ time on a regular basis (photos for reference?)
• anecdotal evidence from teacher/parent – follow up on class meeting nights.
• student developmental reports done by the classroom teacher.

I’ll keep you posted about how it all goes.

_____________________________

Sergiovanni, T. (2005). Hope, Trust, Community, Other Virtues. In Strengthening the heartbeat: Leading and learning together in schools (pp. 75-100). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.