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.
