Down with management speak, the contentment revolution starts here!

On a recent holiday I was sat on the hotel balcony mulling over various matters and my wife asked me what was wrong. I explained that "I've got a problem". Without hesitation, but with tongue firmly in cheek she replied "A problem should be seen as an opportunity". Well this was like a red rag to a bull, and in a stream of consciousness and "robust" language I issued forth with a rant against this sort of nonsense.This is that rant.

My initial problem with her response was very simple, a problem is a problem, if it had been an opportunity I am sure that I would have said "I've got an opportunity". I am reasonable bright and I know the difference between the two, one is positive and one is negative. Maybe I'm being negative but I see a flat tyre as a problem, a nuisance, an inconvenience, rather than an opportunity to spend my time getting grubby and frustrated.

I have heard this trotted out on many occasions, so-called motivational speakers telling me (not discussing and debating, just telling) about opportunistic problems, but this is a case of the Emperor's new clothes, it isn't there. This is an opportunity to work harder and sort out something that someone else has done to make your life more challenging. In reality these management aphorisms have created their own mythology, a mythology which at its heart is designed to pile pressure on people, make workers compare themselves to each other, and to apply pressure to fit the mould of being an effective manager. Failure to turn a problem into an opportunity is seen as a failure.

I am not completely dismissive of all of this, there must be some wisdom here. Stephen Covey's "7 Habits..." states as Habit 7 that we should "sharpen the saw", in other words look after ourselves. But even this is still business focused, look after ourselves to make us more effective rather than for the sake of personal happiness. Unfortunately most of these maxims seem to be regurgitated junk or manifesto statements of sociopaths trying to squeeze the last drops of juice out of the orange by playing on feelings of guilt and inadequacy.

Behind the language is an implicit relationship between employer and employee. Business success and personal economic prosperity are at the heart of a majority of the books which populate the management bookshelves in airport bookshops (just an aside why are there 10 times more of these books than science or 100 times more than poetry?). I must admit that during my leadership career I have read many of these books, both general business management and specific educational management. My worry is that most of these books seem to ignore the humanity of colleagues, they are about the individual and just see others as cogs in a machine, cogs that either drive you or cogs that you drive. These cogs are generally not seen as a mutually beneficial machine, cogs are metallic and hard, impersonal and unemotional, but the reality of organisations is that the cogs are organic, these cogs are emotional, vulnerable and unique. Relationships are seen through an outcome-focused lens, a lens that equates professional success with output and profit. I would question if such a belief is sustainable and certainly whether everyone comes out on top.

This may sound like a socialist take on leadership, and may be it is, though for me emotions are as important as economics. At the beginning of the Bruce Springsteen's live video of Born to Run he says "remember in the end nobody wins unless everybody wins". When I first heard this as an idealistic teenager it stirred me, but now as a gnarled middle-aged man I still see it as a plausible maxim for ethically sound organisations, and especially schools. [A small aside I suspect staff at my previous school feared that it would be renamed Bruce Springsteen School].

Most schools are not profit making machines (even most private schools just break even and are charitable concerns) so why would we be wanting to use the language and philosophies of business where the raison d'etre is rarely the betterment of the whole community? Whilst schools operate within tight budgets, have expensive outgoings and often struggle to get to the end of the year, they are not businesses is the sense that the local supermarket is. I therefore feel that we need to be a little sceptical about adopting the philosophies of profit-making organisations where success is often judged in terms of profits and dividends. Ultimately what I am calling for (and also actively promoting) is a different metric of success. Can we see beyond the power, ego, personal gratification and wealth that apparently makes us "happy"? Can we aspire to be content? Can we make our ambition to achieve contentment? That contentment may be achieving good exam results with your classes, seeing low ability children make excellent progress or seeing a colleague thrive, none of which will make you richer. Could we have a simple ambition, to be content? Could school leadership set its main target to achieve whole school contentment?

We need to do something, teachers are leaving the profession in droves, there is a crisis in leadership and stress is going through the roof. Let's be brave, let's be content.

GCSE results 2016

It is not really a leadership development thing but I have written a piece about GCSEs, about why students should look on the bright side and why its time for parents to take responsibility.

Please take a read HERE.

Remember your colleagues have brains as well or "why I hate ice-breakers"

Over the years I have undertaken many activities which have induced terror in me, most often as a result of altitude and the potential death-inducing effect of gravity experienced on high mountains. But nothing compares to that feeling of terror I experience whenever a course-leader utters the word "ice-breaker" resulting in a tail-spin of fear and loathing as I descend to depths of misery! Why do I hate these apparently innocuous preliminaries? There are a variety of reasons so here are just a few.

Firstly I don't want to share details of my life, loves, hobbies, achievements, failures and so on with a bunch of strangers. Then I don't want to play silly games with a bunch of other people who also don't want to play games. Thirdly, do your job; I've come here to learn something, not bugger about. And fourthly (and in this list most importantly), I have a brain, I'm a professionally and academically successful and intelligent teacher, so treat me like one.

Before I go further here's a true story. Many years ago I attended a course (no idea what on) and I ended up on a table of relatively young female teachers (this was simply luck-of-the-draw). The ice-breaker was to share our most memorable days. My table-mates were either dim-witted or genuinely nosey since they all robotically poured out fond memories of recent wedding days. Utterly disinterested in the activity, and by now the banality of my colleagues, my turn raised some eyebrows. I happily explained that my most memorable day was seeing Stoke City beat Brentford at Cardiff's Millenium Stadium in a football playoff final. They struggled to comprehend how I placed this above my own wedding day, and their collective sense of humour failed completely when I explained that it was possible I would have another wedding day but I would never get to see Stoke win a playoff final again! Ice-breakers: treat with contempt!

In my list of objections the last one is the one I want to spend a little time discussing as I believe it is at the heart of good INSET as well as at the heart of good leadership, don't forget your colleagues have brains as well! 

I have now worked in every phase of education from nursery through to Universities and what I'm about to say is an observation rather than scientific fact, but by and large I have seen more primary colleagues treated as being brainless than in the secondary phase. This may be for a raft of reasons, none of which can be properly justified but I suspect that because there are far more primary heads than secondary that it stands a good chance that there are more poor primary heads than secondary (I'm not implying that the percentage is different), and also that secondary teachers, with their subject degrees (rather than education degrees), are a tad arsier! Please don't have a go at me over this point.

Here are some tips:

Discuss, debate and justify: if you can't justify your actions you are on slippery ice. Your colleagues will see through you and be asking what book did you get that idea from. Be prepared to discuss and debate your ideas, your colleagues may not agree with you but they will respect a cogent argument, supported by theory and evidence, and with a plan in tow. You must put in the leg work. Understand your subject and be ready for counter-arguments. Before I present an idea to colleagues I always make sure I have come up with a list of negatives and have thought about these viewpoints and how I will talk them through.

Listen and adapt: do you really know it all? It isn't a particularly appealing trait and it is highly likely that there is lot more experience in front of you than you have. Acknowledge and listen to concerns, recognise that there may be a multiplicity of opinions and be prepared to incorporate ideas from the staff. This has many benefits, staff will realise you will listen, that you are treating them as professionals, that you want to share and not simply impose, and that you are also aware that you do not know everything. This is a sign of strength and not weakness.

You don't know everything: it is true, you may have been doing the job 25 years but there are things you don't know. It will do your credibility no harm to (occasionally!) admit this and to use the knowledge and experience of others. Also be prepared to admit when you are wrong or to change your mind. I have done this on several occasions especially when as a secondary trained leader I had to lead a middle school with KS2.

Appeal to colleagues on an intellectual level: they are intelligent people and they will mostly appreciate you recognising this. Explain to them the research findings, the studies and the current developments. Don't assume that they do not want to know, if you are asking someone to change their established practice you had better have a good reason for doing so!

If you are an aspiring leader then reflect on these points and try to remember any situation in which you have been treated as if you are a wiles five year old. These negative experiences are crucial in the development of good leaders, you must remember how it feels to be led badly before you can lead well. I should also add that I am far from perfect, I know I have done exactly what I'm suggesting you should not do, but I hope I have learned from my actions and that I am now a better leader for it.

At the heart of this is a concept I have discussed in an earlier posting, that of authority and power. I have claimed that authority, the true stamp of leadership, is granted to you by others, unlike power which is simply a contractual undertaking. Please click HERE to read that article.

Some of the worst leadership I have encountered has been from those who treat their colleagues as simply worker-ants, they treat them as their proletarian labourers rather than as trusted, intelligent and professional colleagues. Why is this? I only have opinions but I believe it comes down to possibly two main reasons, the first being that they are leading simply because they want to be in charge and the second because they are actually the dim-wit!

Finally I do have a confession to make. In my leadership INSET package I do use an ice-breaker, it goes something like this. "Go and grab a coffee and a biscuit and chat to your colleagues. Come back in 10 minutes."

Jelly Baby Leadership

I'm currently planning an INSET day for middle leaders with a national schools association and I was wracking my brain for a gimmick. As often happens I put it to the back of my mind and went shopping and just as I was heading into a supermarket the penny dropped, I knew what my gimmick would be, jelly babies!

Look at the picture, what do you notice? Well there are red ones, orange ones, green ones and so on. Different colours but look beyond that and what do you see? They are all basically the same. A sugary goo has been moulded to ensure that in fact they are all the same shape, all that is different is the colour. Unfortunately I feel that this is a pretty good analogy for current models of leadership training in schools, both at middle and senior level. Aspiring leaders are forced into moulds, the "colour" or contexts may be different, but basically they are all the same. For red jelly baby read secondary leader, for yellow read primary, for green read curriculum leader and so on, the colours change but they are all the same shape.

This is the what I believe has become the fundamental problem, the state-directed leadership training is designed to produce identical leaders, forcing teachers into moulds, stripping away the individual personalities of aspiring leaders and replacing them with a formula. The courses and criteria has produced a generation of generic leaders most of whom define school success in similar ways and lead by numbers. I am not dismissing the quality of these leaders, I've done one of these qualifications myself and know the right things to say! However I constantly question and have never taken these courses at face value. My worry is that many leaders simply believe all that they are told or if they don't they do toe the party line because they feel that that is what is expected.

My approach is the complete opposite to the jelly baby model. Rather than forcing the aspiring leader into a uniform mould I believe that you should identify a potential leader and mould leadership around them. We would do well to remember that leadership is a personality-centred undertaking, it is undertaken and transmitted through the personality of an individual. Given that everyone has a different personality I would suggest that this implies that everyone's approach to leadership should be different. But why? Your leadership comes into focus once your knowledge, understanding and experience has been focused through the lens of your personality. It isn't just about knowing about "delivering sustainable change" or "transformational leadership", it is about working with people, it is about understanding the needs of staff, their strengths and frailties, it is about people first. Ultimately a future leader should be moulded around their personality rather than the other way around.

Personality is akin to a lens through which leadership is projected. The lens is personal and unique to every leader. That personality is a complex and ever evolving thing. There are so many factors that form an individual's personality that I cannot do justice to it here but it is fair to say that family, values, community, experiences, health and personal history must play a part. Once again given the unique nature of everyone's experience it is little wonder that personality is unique.

Leadership training should help develop the self-knowledge of aspiring leaders and helping them realise their own potential. It shouldn't be about a core curriculum, every school is different, every teacher is different, and the corollary of these facts is that it is impossible to completely teach someone to lead. Instead leaders should understand themselves and how they fit into school structures. They should understand what motivates them, what inspires them and what their values are. They should know how to communicate these to others and when they believe what they say they become authentic and others will follow them.

The best leadership training I have undertaken has been a Master's degree. Read, reflect, synthesise, analyse and adapt. Leadership is a human pursuit, it relies on your personality, it is an intellectual pursuit and your colleagues deserve to be led by someone who has thought about leadership, it is always unique and never the same twice.

Don't be a jelly baby leader, be unique, be yourself.

Developing lesson observation skills: the key to improving teaching and learning

When I first became a Head of Physics I was handed the line management of two colleagues, a responsibility which included their performance management. Consequently I found myself having to observe lessons when I had only been teaching myself for a few years. I was handed forms and grids but to be honest I was relatively clueless. I'm eternally grateful to those I managed at the time for allowing me to continue this charade but in reality they were humouring me. By the time I hit senior leadership I believe I did know what I was doing but it wasn't until I undertook joint observations with far more experienced colleagues that I truly knew I was on the right track. It took a long time for me to reach this point and looking back on my experiences I feel that I lost many years of valuable observations simply because no-one had validated my observations or given me any guidance.

Being a good teacher doesn't necessarily make you a good observer. We believe we can teach colleagues to become better teachers but one of the key techniques by which we do this (observing lessons) is left to luck! Surely if you are going to improve teaching by observing then you ought to know what you are doing.

When I first became a head my first round of observations were conducted in pairs, to validate each others findings but also as a developmental activity for the observers.

I feel that there are two key reasons why leaders should receive training on lesson observation, firstly it is used as a core measure of performance and can be linked to pay progression, and secondly it is only through actually watching someone teach that you can constructively improve their teaching (I accept that you can improve marking and so on without watching lessons but the actual business of teaching really requires first-hand observations).

Here's how I do it.

Step 1. Find a willing volunteer who doesn't mind being observed.

Step 2. Prep your colleague. What are you looking for in the lesson? Where would you sit? When should you move? What should you note down and how?

Step 3. Off you go! Remember that your job is twofold, firstly to observe the observer and secondly to collate observations for comparison purposes after the lesson. I also like to do some  in-lesson coaching in these situations. Pointing out where to sit, when to move, what to look at and so on. A quiet word in an ear or a little note can maximise the value of the shared observation.

Step 4. After the lesson compare notes. Let your colleague kick off. If you use a framework  it is easier. I have mentioned the 5Ps many times but it really does help with lesson observations; concentrate on pitch, pace and progress and you've hit the nail on the head. See HERE for the 5Ps.
This is also a good time to give feedback on the process of observation itself.

Step 5. Now watch your colleague give feedback. This is also so important. I have written about feedback HERE but when done well it can encourage and develop good teaching.

Step 6. Again feedback on the feedback.

Who will this benefit? Middle and senior leaders, NQT mentors, student teacher mentors, teachers requiring development, in fact just about anyone! This is one of the best pieces of CPD you can deliver; invest in this and you will see the benefits.

So what is the point of lesson observation feedback?

Why do we spend lots of time watching our colleagues teach? Why do we also spend lots of time talking to our colleagues about their lessons? The cynic will say "because we have to", "it is part of the appraisal cycle" and so on, and this is true if there is a culture in the school that lesson observations and feedback are activities that are done to colleagues rather than with them. Some may suggest that there are times when we observe in "OFSTED" mode so that leaders and teachers are ready for inspection, however I believe that there is only one way, one philosophy, and one motivation behind lesson observations, and that is to develop teachers to improve outcomes for children.

It is true that lesson observations should form a key piece in the monitoring and evaluation life of a school, but by developing a philosophy that says the M&E side is a fortunate by-product of a more constructive lesson observation philosophy then it is more likely that observations will help to raise standards.

Within a cycle of leadership there will always be tension at the beginning. Lesson observations will be tense but the way the observation is handled and the manner in which feedback is conducted will sow the seeds for increasingly productive observations in the future. So what did I do? You've possibly seen me ramble on about "5+2 Ps" elsewhere in this blog; this set the expectations for the lesson and colleagues knew what I would be looking for. But also, and very importantly, I told them how I would be conducting the feedback. It is at this point that you can make a real difference. My colleagues knew that the feedback would be around the ideas of Purpose, Planning, Pitch, Pace and Progress and that they would be leading the feedback. That last bit is the radical part. Rather than feeding-back to the teacher, the feedback then becomes a reflective dialogue. As my colleagues knew what they would be discussing they evaluated their own lessons and were able to analyse the effectiveness of the lesson. Before I started on my 5Ps crusade the feedback I gave was like the feedback I had received, tell them the good and bad points and then tell them (or invite them to tell me) what to do better. This approach is different, the feedback becomes mentoring and not simply a M&E activity. The result of this is that the observation and feedback become real opportunities for staff to development.

When a culture of understanding and respect has developed within a school then all sorts of opportunities open up. For example I wanted to develop the leadership capacity of less experienced teachers. Because no teacher feared observation I was able to arrange for teachers to be observed by their colleagues with me also in the room. Now nothing new here except for my role in the room. I wasn't observing the lesson, I was observing the observer. Throughout the lesson I would whisper in their ear, pass them notes, get them to take up certain positions and point to things so as to develop their observing capacity. After the lesson I would ask them to brief me about the lesson and then I would observe them to the debrief with the class teacher. You may think that this all seems a little expensive in terms of time, but the impact of developing staff to undertake meaningful lesson observations is immense.

My experience of an OFSTED inspection in 2015 will last with me forever. I observed a lot of lessons with the inspectors and then they watched me giving feedback to 4 or 5 colleagues. Each time I started with "well how do you think the lesson went?", and every time I immediately had the teacher leading off with statements about progress, pace and pitch. This wasn't feedback, this was dialogue, this was staff development, and it was no surprise to me that every lesson would have been graded at least "good". 

The human side of leadership

The Hay-McBer analysis of leadership styles has been cropping up in educational leadership for a good few years. I first encountered it in the early 2000s and it is regularly encountered on current leadership programs. It aims to break leadership styles into 6 categories and analyses the way in which leaders operate according to their predominant leadership style. The 6 leadership types (according to Hay McBer) are:

• Coercive
• Authoritative
• Affiliative
• Democratic
• Pacesetting
• Coaching

The issue that I have with this is that it is all about the leader and not the leadership relationship. It is acknowledged that most leaders will display all of these at some time or another but nevertheless I believe that it is wrong to pigeon-hole leaders. At best it is overly simplistic and naively reductionist and at worst it absolves the leader from the responsibility of establishing quality relationships. “I am an authoritative leader so deal with it” seems to be the attitude. It is then the responsibility of those being led to adapt to the leader, which is wrong!

Educational leadership has a great deal to learn from leadership in the wider world of business but education has a unique set of employees, employees who are all very different. I would sooner the see a different Hay McBer analysis, where the predominant characteristic of the employee comes first. I would assert that a school is most successful when it is inclusive with its staff. No-one should feel excluded from the life of the school but if leaders feel that they can legitimise a certain way of leading because they fit the category then I fear that employees will be excluded.

So here is my radical proposal. Leaders, don’t categorise yourself at all. Embrace all leadership styles and always seek to gain greater inter-personal skills. To work out how many leadership styles you actually need apply “Whalley’s law of leadership styles” which states “the minimum number of leadership styles needed is calculated by taking the number of those you lead and multiplying it by 2”. Why the “2”? Well you need a different style for when your employee is having a good day and when they are having a bad day! You may even want to multiply by 2 again to allow you to recognise that your leadership style with any individual is determined by your state of mind as well.

Leadership is a human process based on unique interactions. Put your employees first (not yourself) and remember they are all individuals. Leadership is about relationships and if you cannot form meaningful relationships you may make a great manager but you will struggle with leadership. You may actually think you’re a great leader but what would your staff say. Have you actually got genuine authority or are you exercising power (see earlier post HERE)?

I have learned that every member of staff deserves personalised leadership if you invest in them they will invest in you and the school.  

Addition to blog (13 Sept 2016)
What could you do practically to make this happen? I reckon you could conduct 2 audits, a personal one, and one for those you lead. What are your characteristics, values, strengths and weaknesses that make you a good leader? Now do a similar thing for your team, explicitly identifying key characteristics. Given that I assert that leadership is a relationship-centred human activity, understanding personalities (including your own) must be at the heart of our activities. 

On a personal level I have found that I have developed significantly over my leadership career, my characteristics have changed (some radically). In addition the teams I have led have all been different and so my skill-set has had to adapt to meet the needs of the team. Rather than waiting for this to happen I have actively looked at my teams and worked out how their personalities require me to lead.