Long Term Change and The Leadership Gap

Article

“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”

- African Proverb

Before our Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) team met today, I discussed our new character education programming with a couple staff members. (We are currently utilizing resources purchased through Character Strong.) There’s an interest in adopting it schoolwide based on initial positive responses from students and staff.

“How can we ensure that everyone is speaking the same language and reinforcing the same skills?” A vague reply along with a few eyes toward me, looking for direction.

I paused before responding. Not easy. As I have learned, there are two ways to go about this work: as a short-term mandate or as a long-term initiative.

Distinguishing Direction from Empowerment

Bryan Goodwin made a case for both approaches in a short column for Educational Leadership.

There are benefits to providing clear direction about the path forward, notes Goodwin, especially when change is needed quickly. This might apply most readily to schools designated as “in need of improvement” due to low test scores and significant gaps between student subgroups.

“To get quick gains in achievement, reflection and innovation may be less important than simply executing teaching routines more effectively and implementing the curriculum more consistently.”

If I were in a situation where a school needed a quick turnaround, I might see this approach as an only option.

Yet what are the unintended consequences when we “go it alone”? A leadership gap.

Goodwin highlighted studies that examined similar schools three years or more after their initial success from directive leadership. While “these turnaround schools made quick gains from directive leadership, they were unable to pivot to a more empowering style to continue their improvement trajectory.” Likely, schools failed to reach their potential because they could only go as far as the capacity of their leader.

Leadership that invites teachers and teams to voice their concerns and debate the pros and cons of different approaches does lengthen the professional learning journey. Yet it is through that process that leadership is developed and distributed. With the right amount challenge and support, faculty do come together to share the responsibility.

As Goodwin summarizes, “When it comes to getting quick results, directive leadership may be more effective. But when it comes to breaking through performance ceilings, empowering, collaborative leadership may be necessary.”

What’s Most Important Here?

After pausing for a moment, I posed a hypothetical. “How do you think it would be received if I told everyone tomorrow that needed to adopt this program?” Silence filled the space along with a nod.

A common response is brought up in these moments: “What’s most important here?”

In this situation, we agreed that it was essential to try this resource out and then personalize it to fit the needs of our students and culture. “We don’t even know if this will be effective for our kids yet.” More nods along with some decision-making about what’s next for schoolwide activities.

It can be frustrating to start slowly. But for change that is built to last and reach its potential, it might be the only approach for success in the long term.