How important is leadership (in its generally accepted definition) with regards to student results and where does/should it come from?

The Science Codex writes about a new study funded by The Wallace Foundation gives interesting, but not surprising, insight.

“The rubber hits the road in the classroom; that’s where the learning happens,” said Kyla Wahlstrom. “Leadership is important because it sets the conditions and the expectations in the school that there will be excellent instruction and there will be a culture of ongoing learning for the educators and for the students in the school.” …

The study demonstrates a strong, positive link between educational leaders — particularly principals — and student learning outcomes.

I’s not surprising because we all know that in the workplace most people live up—or down—to their boss’ expectations and it’s been shown that kids do, too.

If you don’t feel like reading the whole study, the Codex lists the main findings, among them

Higher-performing schools generally ask for more input and engagement from a wider variety of stakeholders.

In districts where levels of student learning are high, district leaders are more likely to emphasize goals and initiatives that reach beyond minimum state expectations for student performance.

The stark lack of district support for principals’ professional development and a lack of regular contact between most principals and their district office.

Input from all stakeholders…engagement…goals…initiatives…striving for excellence…professional development. This is what works, what motivates most humans and leads to positive results.

Not surprising that it would be applicable in education, but not happening, either.

Flickr image credit: The Wallace Foundation

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Cheating was in the spotlight in a recent NY Times Room for Debate, which includes opinions from a professor, author, recent grad and high school teacher, along with reader comments on each.

The opinion that drew the most comments was from Mark Bauerlein, professor of English at Emory University and the author of The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future. He pinpoints two causes, 1) pressure to achieve has made cheating a “survival skill” and 2) they don’t know it’s cheating because concepts such as plagiarism and attribution are foreign to them as a result of Web 2.0 and social media’s interactive nature, mashups, file sharing, etc.

I didn’t read all the comments, but #2 from George Canada was especially interesting.

I doubt that anything has changed. At Berkeley in the academic year 1952-53 my teaching assistant in an American History course said “Mr C—-, if you don’t start bringing cheat notes to the exams, you’ll get a B in this course.” I looked as astonished as I was, I suppose, since he went on to say something like ” don’t you know that everyone else is bring in notes and cheat sheets?” I didn’t know and I didn’t act and I did get a B in that course. In a psychology course I apparently got the highest or very high mark: the professor said “you must have brought in the perfect cheat sheets.”

Perhaps what we are seeing today is the cumulative effect of cheaters raising cheaters, so that the act itself is becoming more pervasive, more blatant, more socially acceptable, technology-enabled and therefore much easier.

Perhaps it really is no big deal, as we keep being told by those who do it; perhaps it has always been pervasive, as George Canada’s experience leads us to believe.

Perhaps I’m behind the times and test scores are more important than learning; perhaps cheating is a necessary skill in today’s world.

What do you think?

Image credit: Hariadhi on Wikipedia Commons

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Monday I wrote how people’s short attention span and memory plus general apathy enable the Teflonizing of brands that screw up, so that nothing sticks.

This is just as true of all the personal brands jousting for space on the planet.

Coincidentally to my plan for today’s post, Phil Gerbyshak Had a guest post Wednesday by Sally Hogshead, author of Fascinate, called Powerdrunks: How They Got That Way, and Why You Might Become One.

Sally’s explanation on what drives a power trip makes additional comments superfluous, so read that post before continuing with this one.

Sally gives good advice on how to stop yourself from becoming powerdrunk, but what of all those who are not only powerdrunk, but Teflon-coated?

Think Bob Nardelli, John Thain, others on this list, the jerk in the next cubicle who was fired only to surface at the cool company down the street or any politician/any party.

How do they do it? How, no matter what, do they come up smelling like a rose in another position of power?

Like companies, they take advantage of spin, but rely mostly on charm, too many managers’ intense dislike of the interviewing process, including on senior levels where, it is assumed, the recruiter has done most of the work, and selective hearing when checking references.

Teflon goes on layer by layer each time there are no consequences for the actions; most people function on the what you see is what you get, so eventually invincibility sets in and the whole Teflon process becomes self-fulfilling prophesy.

But what can you do when the decisions aren’t yours?

You can actively remember; actively means reminding others even when they don’t want to hear it. You can learn to be honest and still legal when giving a reference. You can care about those around you and protect them from powerdrunks. And if they are politicians don’t vote for them and don’t allow them to hide behind their ideology—even when it’s yours, too.

In other words, change your MAP, since you can’t change theirs.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/portland_mike/4588219036/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

There are many ways to consider leadership’s future and I often focus on schools and education (not the same thing) and kids—who are the leaders, actual and positional, tomorrow.

But there is another view of leadership’s future worth considering and that is of leadership as an industry, as opposed to an action or description.

Make no mistake, leadership, directly and indirectly, is definitely an industry.

Consider the standard definition of ‘industry’: A category used to describe a company’s primary business activity, usually determined by the largest source of a company’s revenues.

From individual coaches to major consultants and every size in-between, thousands of people earn their daily bread and pay their mortgages with money made through their activities in the leadership industry. Even those who aren’t paid in money are earning something, whether it’s enhanced reputation, a way to spread their opinions/beliefs, an ego boost or something still more esoteric.

I’m not saying that this is a bad thing or a good thing, but it is a thing worth noting.

In a previous post I warned of the need to digest and tweak expert information as opposed to swallowing it whole and this is even more important when it comes to leadership, considering the vast volume of it and the media’s constant focus and insistence that it is leadership that separates the winners and losers.

Even if you subscribe to that idea you need to develop a definition that is relevant to your world and stands the test of time, not some offered up by the industry.

Leadership terms are casually thrown around, applied by some to any and every action that a person does, may do or should do and by others only to the actions/words of those in positional leadership roles.

Perhaps these two points are worth accepting, although I’m sure many will disagree with me,

1. Leadership is an industry in which people, directly or indirectly, earn their living.
2. Leadership information comes in a multiplicity of forms and the quality varies widely.

Accepting these two ideas results in one conclusion: like investing information, leadership information should be digested, internalized and tweaked for your individual needs at both that point in your life and in your future.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hikingartist/4582034468/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

When looking for a talented entry-level candidate, grades carry great weight with managers and HR.

This is especially true when hiring advanced degrees where starting salaries remain high and even more-so when the degrees are in the professions—doctors and lawyers.

Recruiters scour university campuses looking for what they judge to be the crème de la crème and you, the client, pay big bucks to access that talent.

Customers assume a certain level of integrity from educational institutions and equate grades with expertise.

So what happens to that integrity and those expectations when law schools lower the bar?

In the last two years, at least 10 law schools have deliberately changed their grading systems to make them more lenient. These include law schools like New York University and Georgetown, as well as Golden Gate University, Loyola Law School Los Angeles, and Tulane University, which just announced the change this month.

Granted, it’s being done in K-12 schools all over the country, but law school? And at some of the most prestigious US law schools, too.

These the same associates who do most of the real work when your company shells out $500 or more an hour to hire a name on the door.

Many will become judges, local, state and Federal—even to the Supreme Court.

Some will join Federal enforcement agencies—SEC, Justice, FBI.

And many will eventually enter politics, which is justified considering how far that bar has already been lowered.

What’s next? Well, we have a real shortage of doctors now that is getting worse as our population ages.

Doesn’t that give you a warm and fuzzy feeling in the pit of your stomach?

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/johncohen/152850884/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Teams aren’t allowed to win by a large margin, everyone likes everyone, no one plays favorites; wouldn’t you love to live/work in a place where that was the norm?

Last Thursday I wrote about a school where teams lost the game if they scored too much and said, “Great lesson to teach our future leaders—don’t excel, don’t try too hard, don’t strive too much, don’t field a winning team and, whatever you do, don’t follow in the footsteps of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Magic Johnson, Dr. Jonas Salk or any of those who surpassed their peers by a wide margin.”

Now, in line with teachers and administrators varied efforts to “level the playing field” for kids in school, which is an oxymoron (accent on the moron) if I ever heard one, comes the push to eliminate “best friends.”

Indeed, much of the effort to encourage children to be friends with everyone is meant to head off bullying and other extreme consequences of social exclusion.

But the professionals see it differently.

If children’s friendships are choreographed and sanitized by adults, the argument goes, how is a child to prepare emotionally for both the affection and rejection likely to come later in life?

There was a time when the first 18-22 years of life was focused on growing up, not just getting older.

Kids made mistakes, fell on their butts, picked themselves up and kept going; they learned about cause and effect—if they did X, Y would happen; they learned about accountability and consequences—if they did not do X, Y blew up.

All this was considered normal.

What’s happening to your kids in their first 18-22 years? Are they wrapped in cotton wool; life’s kinks smoothed out; fights fought for them, their wants satisfied immediately; protected, encouraged—entitled?

Now here’s the 64 dollar question.

Which do you want to hire? Which do you want on your team?

Image credit: http://atom.smasher.org

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

You know the old saying, ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t'; for kids it’s more like ‘damned when they do and damned when others don’t’.

Kids stand less chance of developing into strong, balanced, ethical adults now than in past decades; not just in the US, but globally—they are heading for mediocrity.

If you think I’m being overly pessimistic consider the following.

In yet another nod to the protection of fledgling self-esteem, an Ottawa children’s soccer league has introduced a rule that says any team that wins a game by more than five points will lose by default. …

“The new rule, suggested by “involved parents,” is a temporary measure that will be replaced by a pre-season skill assessment to make fair teams.” (Hat tip to Elliot Ross for leading me to this article.)

Great lesson to teach our future leaders—don’t excel, don’t try too hard, don’t strive too much, don’t field a winning team and, whatever you do, don’t follow in the footsteps of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Magic Johnson, Dr. Jonas Salk or any of those who surpassed their peers by a wide margin.

Helicopter parents are nothing new, but their actions are getting more outlandish. And whoever said that life is fair?

Meanwhile, here in the land No Child Left Behind, the pressures have gotten so great that some teachers and administrators have turned to a repellent solution.

Experts who consult with school systems estimated that 1 percent to 3 percent of teachers — thousands annually — cross the line between accepted ways of boosting scores, like using old tests to prep students, and actual cheating.

Cheating ranges from accessing current tests and using the questions in test prep classes to tampering with tests by correcting incorrect answers.

Cheating seems to be a fact of life these days and not just the US; when you add the pressure of funding and paychecks people have been known to make rotten decisions.

People rant on about what teachers are paid, but, in fact, they make far less than your average teen babysitter.

The average teacher’s salary (nation-wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour.

Keep in mind that the 6.5 hours doesn’t count meetings, preparation, study, admin or any of the other things teachers have to do.

And that $1.42 is to educate, not babysit, them.

Try hiring a neighbor kid for that and you’ll get laughed off the block

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thost/170369652/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Almost every day I read at least one article or blog post to the effect that people should consciously start the day by deciding to lead, whether at the office, at home or in one of their varied activities.

And every time I clench my teeth and mutter to myself about the idiocy of the attitude.

Of course, it’s just my opinion, but here is why I think that way.

First, it is the court of public opinion that designates a person a leader, not the individual’s announcement that she is one, and the designation comes whether the leadership is lauded or lampooned.

In fact, talk of leadership is technically future or past tense—what should be done and what was done as opposed to what is being done in real-time.

Second is context. I have always found that discussions ignoring context seem nonsensical to me.

For example, the multiplicity of articles in the early 2000s that compared a company’s stock price and growth at that time to it’s high before the crash.

Even worse is the comparison of CEOs’ skill during that recession to their predecessors, or their own performance, during the expansion of the nineties.

Moreover, leaders are a product of their culture; drop them into a non-synergistic culture and watch them fail—often spectacularly and often taking the company down with them—think Bob Nardelli’s move from GE to Home Depot.

While culture is a company’s internal context, what is usually referred to as context is the external world situation and both affect leadership outcome.

So I have a suggestion for all those who jump out of bed promising themselves that today they will lead with no consideration of context.

Instead, try jumping out of bed each morning with the promise that you will show initiative within whatever context you face.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingorrr/449613774/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Columnist Donald J. Myers, a retired U.S. Marine Corps colonel, bemoans the lack of integrity so prevalent today, in and out of the military.

The military goes to extreme lengths to develop integrity because, unlike the civilian world, a lack of integrity in the military costs lives — not just money.

I would argue that the excessive lack of integrity in the corporate world has also cost lives; the thousands whose lives were destroyed by Enron and the recent banking debacle, among others, cost lives and, although most are still walking, they are definitely wounded, some mortally.

The last couple of years media has been trumpeting the importance of leadership integrity and various surveys of global executives confirmed its importance.

But that was then and this is now.

Fast Company cites a new study by IBM—

For CEOs, creativity is now the most important leadership quality for success in business, outweighing even integrity and global thinking… The study is the largest known sample of one-on-one CEO interviews, with over 1,500 corporate heads and public sector leaders across 60 nations and 33 industries polled on what drives them in managing their companies in today’s world.

Here’s how the numbers broke down—

About 60% of CEOs polled cited creativity as the most important leadership quality, compared with 52% for integrity and 35% for global thinking.

(Yes, I realize that totals 147%, but it’s IBM…)

I have no argument with creativity, after all creativity gave us Avatar, iPods and Viagra, but it also gave us CDMs and CDOs.

This points up how important it is for leaders to practice integrity as they embrace creativity.

Image credit: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/963443

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Wally Bock has an excellent post regarding his rethinking of the value of the MBA Oath and its possible effect on future ethics. Wally quotes from a post by Scott Eblin entitled “Why we need an MBA oath.”

“What doesn’t get said, doesn’t get heard. If the MBA Oath causes even a few leaders to stand up and say out loud how they intend to conduct themselves then it was worth the effort of writing and promoting it.”

That idea dovetails perfectly with a tongue-in-cheek op-ed column by Edward E. Sanders, an adjunct lecturer at New York City College, textbook author and entrepreneur.

Sanders suggests that today’s leaders got their ethics lessons watching JR and Gordon Gekko and many followed in their footsteps, so perhaps Hollywood could produce a new batch of TV shows and movies that focus on CEOs making tough choices and doing the right thing.

Perhaps Tom Hanks (as a John Wayne character) could play the role of a competent and honest CEO — a person respected and trusted, and who inspires others to do the right thing when confronted with compromising choices.

Sanders may be on to something. How about a group of forensic accountants fighting financial crimes a la CSI.

Most kids need ethical examples beyond their parents and they do look for them in their various entertainment forms.

The problem, of course, is money.  All entertainment mediums build their offerings around what sells and what sells is from the dark side.

It doesn’t matter that JR and Gekko get their comeuppance at the end, viewers’ well-developed “but me” tool reassures them that their outcome will be different.

But like the MBA Oath, it can’t hurt and it might help.

Flickr photo credit to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/4053967020/in/set-72157623093607945/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL