When 2+2=5 and everyone is right: managing conflicting perceptions

Bear with me on this one. I’m going to start with a diversion into science education but there is a reason as I believe what applies to children learning science also applies to leaders dealing with teachers. (If you want to avoid the details skip straight to the pudding in the last paragraph!)

As a science teacher I have always been interested in how children learn science and make sense of the world. There is evidence to suggest that children are capable of holding two (at a minimum) views of the world at any time, one being that taught in school and the other being the “folk” science from home, family and the community. Often these are at odds. I have had several experiences of where children have told me that their views are correct because their grandmothers told them it was the case, and that all we do in school science is add a veneer of knowledge which is regurgitated for tests and promptly forgotten for the rest of life. However the science educationist, Ros Driver, recognised that this cycle is breakable if science teachers create moments of cognitive conflict where a child experiences a phenomena that is so contrary to their folk science interpretation that they are forced to abandon this is favour of the mainstream science view. A great example is when children believe that a 1kg mass will fall more quickly than a 100g mass, and it is only when simultaneously released masses hit the floor at the same time that their understanding begins to change. This is known as the constructivist model of science learning.

The key points here are that the child’s version of science is real to them even if it  is totally at odds with the scientific orthodoxy (and before you ask I believe it is highly unlikely that the child’s view is the right one!), and the second is that cognitive conflict is a potential (and powerful) mechanism in shifting perceptions.

Now let’s get back to school leadership. I am sure I exasperate my team with my conviction that everyone believes they can be right and that this should be taken seriously. I know that doesn’t appear to make sense but if someone comes to you and claims they are doing more work than someone else then just telling them they don’t won’t change anything. In fact if you just tell them they are mistaken they may end up thinking that you are dismissive towards and now not only do they do more work than anyone else but also their head or line manager doesn’t care.

Our colleagues’ perceptions are real, they may not be objectively true, but as they are believed then their subjective truth is all important. Perceptions are shaped through a range of lenses, personality, emotions, current outlook on life, relationships with others, and so on. Misunderstandings find their origins in this; an objective truth is subjectively processed by individuals and often internalised in very different ways. Problems arise when the personalised interpretations are diametrically opposite and conflict is inevitable. In all of this we have to assume that all parties are acting in good faith and with integrity; the water is muddied significantly when lies are told.

So how to promote change then? Many only change when their views are shown to be demonstrably wrong. You need to engineer cognitive conflict. Simply correcting someone may only add a veneer of leader-directed “truth” without replacing or even just modifying underlying views. You may need to collect and present evidence, you may need to allow someone to observe a lesson, look at someone else’s books, go to another school for day, and if it is a significant issue it may require a significant action. Nevertheless if you want a fundamental shift then you will not achieve with simply correcting someone.

To cut a long story short. If you want to change the mind of an intelligent professional make sure your approach is better than simply correcting them. Acknowledge their concern, understand their perspective, find and present evidence to the contrary and lead them towards the interpretation that the evidence suggests. Even then this process must be personalized; do not assume that the process is generic, it must be tailored to meet the needs of the individual. This takes a lot longer than telling someone they are wrong but it is worth it. It also shows that you care (if you don't care then you're in the wrong game). Most people can cope with being wrong, mistaken or whatever, and will sooner or later accept the evidence, but what they won’t take is being called stupid.