Agree with most everything.

When I moved to higher education I expected to be surrounded by many bright people and I was.

What I hadn’t thought through was the value of a nimble mind. Although many of my colleagues were very intelligent and were experts in their fields of study, very few were able to practice divergent thinking and even fewer were visionaries.

I’ve raved on and on before about Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions but it, once again, speaks directly to an issue of bureaucratic rigidity that resists change even to the point of self-extinction. Fresh change that is revolutionary in nature but which would ensure survival and viability is not a positive goal that is sought in higher education. NOTE: every messenger WILL be killed!

I believe the plan for a revolution is often very simple and I’m just bold(?) enough to offer mine:

1.) Do away with the tenure system so administration can get at the point where change needs to occur

2.) Require all professors to gain and grow in experience of offering online courses

3.) Offer EXPERT support for faculty to become effective and (gasp) entertaining in leading online classes

4.) Get rid of any faculty who are (a) unwilling to try and who (b) aren’t good at it. This is an ESSENTIAL skill for the 21st century university or college that survives and thrives.

5.) Learn how to hire master teachers who have proven abilities to teach well and relate to online students. Don’t use people who can’t do it to staff the search committees. In fact, the single most important staff person for the 21st century university may be the overall master teacher who oversees hiring, faculty development, and planning of online delivery of courses.

I personally don’t find that higher ed people (or anyone in education) are naturally gifted with a modicum of courage so I don’t expect what is common sense in the business world to hold any sway over higher ed traditions and protective policies.

Very sad. Is anyone out there? Is anyone listening?

-richporr (Ph.D., faculty emeritus if those hold any weight)

Over the course of my multiple careers, I've put in a lot of hours counseling people through crisis situations. I've been screamed at, cursed, threatened with firearms and most anything else you can imagine. However, in every case, we found some resolution, some peace, and deepened a positive relationship with each other. I hope I've learned a few things along the way and am excited to share one of those insights with you on this post.

I've learned something I believe to be crucial for effectively leading and managing people. I want to share that with you in hopes that you will not only be able to apply this insight to others but also to yourself. Here it comes . . .

Everyone Has a Default Set of Reactions

Everyone has their CASTLE: the place from which they react when they feel besieged and forced into a corner.

In my experience, it seems as if each person has a DEFAULT set of reactions that kick in if they feel threatened. Time and again, they will react the same way. Let me give you two examples.

Example One

One person I was responsible for (and you can't make me say where or when) would come out fighting if threatened or if she thought she was being threatened. She didn't think about it; she just came storming out swinging and kicking. To her, any unexpected (but normal) thing that came along sounded like the starting bell for the beginning of the round.

When I learned about her family environment–father, mother and all siblings who were contentious and unbelievably demanding of each other–I understood how this DEFAULT got set in her. Furthermore, my identification of DEFAULT helped me anticipate and manage her reactions and truly help her fit in and remain productive.

Example Two

I'm going to either be slightly transparent or less opaque here because I'm going to reveal my DEFAULT reaction to extreme pressure–I run! I'm not alone. I find a multitude of runners to the left and right of me if I ditch everything and hit the road. Fortunately, I became aware of this fairly early in my life and have been able to manage it since my first career path so that I've been able to stick through each subsequent challenge.

However, I'm still a runner at heart. If the troops are besieging my CASTLE, I'm looking for the secret passage out the back and planning a little trip to the next continent.

How You Can Use This Insight

As I wrote above, if you can identify others' CASTLES, you can head off problems before the reactions kick in and you can interdict the problems before they fully manifest. When you know what their CASTLE looks like, you can plan your approach: soft or hard, direct or indirect, slow or fast, etc. You can help them understand why they react they way they do and help them manage their reactions.

If you understand your own DEFAULT reactions, you can manage yourself. You can resist the temptation to fight, to jump and run, to give up, or whatever your ingrained and practiced set or reactions are. You can manage yourself and provide the kind of stability that is necessary for effective leadership.

Let me know how this works out for you and if it helps.

-richporr

1. All those who fall short of perfection are run out of the workplace on a rail (raise your hand if you are not perfect and more than likely to screw up very soon), or
2. We bend the workplace culture to tacitly support the myth of perfection while we apply the expectations unevenly across the workers

If the first option is adopted, we run through people in a never-ending blur of hiring and firing and destroying people's lives. In addition, those managers involved in this kind of regime slowly lose their souls. Ultimately, the option of embracing "Perfection Only" drives the very best employees away along with the initial batch of screwups. The scales of perfection weigh in finer and finer measures until all are found wanting.

The second option creates a hypocritical work environment where administrators can do no wrong and are protected from their mistakes while the workers and staff are devalued and mistreated. Again, the best will leave.

Of course, the third option is to do the difficult–to seek a balance between workplace harmony and workplace perfection. This option requires thoughtfulness, creativity, and a certain kind of leadership courage. This is the difficult option.

I found a good way to think about the third option in Malcolm Gladwell's book, Outliers. In it, he writes about a way of approaching productivity that is a counter to an expectation of perfection. He writes about, "Good enough!" His research indicates that "good enough" usually produces results that are, well, good enough. The grind toward perfection may be instead an unthinking rush toward diminishing returns.

So . . . the following formula may produce superior results to the current quest for perfection:

HARMONY + GOOD ENOUGH = OPTIMUM PERFORMANCE AND PRODUCTIVITY

Just a thought!

You might want to check out a companion article: "The Chains of Continuous Improvement."

Home

Reproduction is a term that is often used in the field of critical pedagogy. Sparing you the complexities and philosophical arguments surrounding the concept of reproduction, let me offer a vary simplistic definition:

Reproduction is the practice of embracing the culture and ingrained ways of thinking from parents or other strong influencers without seriously interrogating those beliefs. Whew . . . that almost hurt to write such a complex sentence so long after completing my terminal degree.

Reproduction can happen in all areas of our lives, to include our business practices and beliefs. Simply put, it usually involves doing things just like we were taught. While mentoring is generally a good thing, sometimes a little revolution is not only good, it's necessary for success in an ever-changing environment.

For Example . . .

One of the most likely places where you were the victim of negative reproduction was in the high school math class. There is a culture–although it is slowly changing–that is common in secondary math classrooms. Math teachers often teach very much like they were taught. This means they not only follow the same curricular practices, they also reproduce the attitudes and dispositions towards their students that they suffered under when they were students. There are certainly outstanding math teachers who have joined the revolution to teach and present math differently from what they experienced, but overall I think it would be a little frightening to discover how many readers experience similar abuse or insensitivities in the math classes of their youth.

And Another Example . . .

I'm sure most, if not all, of us have also come up against the infamous, "We don't do that that way here" or "We tried that once and it didn't work." In the former case, reproduction was allowed to set like concrete to freeze a corporate culture or business practices and policies. In the latter case, some brave soul got a mini-revolution going but it was squashed like a bug.

Reproduction is Appealing

Reproducing the received culture, beliefs, practices, dispositions, etc. is appealing for several reasons:

• it is safe – "Blessed is the leader for he will be show down" It is much easier to justify just doing what has already been done than to create waves.
• it is easy – no new thing to think up, pitch, and have to defend.
• it encourages promotions – guess who most gets rewarded?

My concern is the number of businesses and other areas in which if something unique and forward-thinking doesn't emerge soon, the jobs will go away. So accepting the status quo may be safe in the short run but devestating in the long run. So, what do we do about this?

Resources About This Topic

One terrific resource is Seth Godin's talk at TED.com about "Standing Out." Excellent take on the need to be unique and catch the eye of your client or customer. I'm sure you'll enjoy it and fuel your mini-revolution.

Another powerful resource, but one that many might find difficult reading, is Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions on Amazon.com or in your local library (ha!).  Just in case you're not willing or don't have the time to dig through that wonderful book, the most relevant point for this post is that you cannot throw off a ruling paradigm by attacking it; you must replace it with a superior one. Hmmm . . . a lot to think about there and quite a challenge as a ruling paradigm is in place because it worked at one time.

So charge out their and tilt a few windmills and maybe help create a more secure future in an ever-changing, fast moving 21st century environment.

I like this article on www.electronicnotepad.org:

“Bridge the Generation Gap with an Electronic Notepad”

It cites a Lexis/Nexus study that clearly shows a technology gap among Gen Y, Gen X and Baby Boomers concerning “polite” use of technology and acceptable use in the workplace. For example, many Baby Boomers thought it unacceptable to use electronic devices during meetings. However, those of us who think of technology as another set of productivity tools think nothing of creating digital notes on the fly.

The article highlights the gaps and suggests a particular approach that I like a lot.

Check it out here.

-Rich

Just a short post this morning.

My son had a job interview this morning. He called as he was driving home. Sounds like the interview went very well.

I reminded him that they want him to do well. Because of fear or lack of confidence–neither of which my son has much of–people often approach a job interview as if it is antagonistic, as if they want to find something wrong with the candidate and exclude them. In part, that is true, but that is only the small part.

They have to cover their rears and not be responsible for a bad hire. They also want to detect some personality or character flaw that would cause them to hate coming to work each day because they would have to be around a dysfunctional colleague. So–yes–they are looking for problems. But that is just the smallest part of what they want to find.

They want to find the next super employee or super professional. They want to find the one who will inject their business or profession with new energy, new passion, new vision, and new creativity. They want to find the super employee that will make everything work better. They want “The One” who will share responsibilities and credit with co-workers and contribute to a positive workplace environment.

They want to find someone who will make their jobs and, consequently, their lives work better. They want someone who is so obviously qualified that they have an ample number of reasons to hire them. They want you!

Help them! Study to be honest, transparent, forthcoming in your interview. Don’t put on airs or clothe yourself with a false personality. It’s much better to be yourself–your professional self, for sure–so that you don’t have to continue to live the lie you created at your interview. No one can keep up an act for long.

Help them! Study the company before hand and think about how you can help, where you might fit it. Help them choose you.

That’s all for now. Hope it helped.

-Rich

The Manager’s Cheat Sheet: 101 Common-Sense Rules for Leaders

Great compact reminder of things that are important for effective leadership. The articles addresses the following areas of leadership:

• Body Language
• Meeting Deadlines
• Getting Along with Employees
• Manage Yourself
• Boosting Productivity
• Managing Finances and Resources
• Communicating with Clients
• Keep Up with Change
• Resolving Problems
• Go Above and Beyond

-Rich

His formulas? They are:

GSF + URAS = OS, and FRAS – GSF = HSE

I won’t cheapen his excellent work by explaining the formulas when you can watch the good doctor himself explain why us success seekers often struggle with focus and staying on task.

I don’t know about you, but sometimes just understanding what is going on gives me that thread that I can begin pulling and tugging on until the entire problem is revealed and solved.

Happy focusing!

-Rich

Here is the formula that can get you moving:

For many years I have enjoyed teaching and coaching young professionals about how to prove to prospect employers that they are experts in their fields–beginning experts, but experts nonetheless. The problem is not that they are not experts, it is that they don’t know how to let it out, how to provide convincing evidence that they know their stuff. Over the years, I’ve found a few things that convince the interviewer that the job hunter is an expert but I want to focus on the two most important ingredients that must be present to convince an interviewer that you know your stuff.

Verbosity: “I can talk about this forever!”

Experts know a lot. They understand how their area of expertise is organized, they know what the “big ideas” are. They can point to important books and publications about their field. And they can talk forever if you let them. So the first form of proof that you can offer as an expert is your ability to know and to articulate a lot about your field. Can you do that? If so, you have passed the first hurdle of proving yourself as an expert. But there is a related and highly critical kind of proof that must accompany verbosity.

Specificity: “I can give you specific examples from my experience that prove my point.”

I was sitting in my office near the close of a day in late summer a few years ago when I got an unusual call. A young lady from the other side of our state called and said someone had given her my name in hopes I could help her. She said she had interviewed for a teacher job in the spring in her dream district. But she didn’t get the job; she didn’t even get called back for a second interview! But since spring something had happened and a position was open again. The district called her back to interview again and she didn’t want to blow it. She was perceptive enough to realize she had not learned anything new since the first interview so she was not likely to do better.

We talked for only ten minutes or so, but she was a quick study. I shared the point about verbosity and went into a little more detail than above. Then I moved to the point of specificity and gave her the two most powerful (almost magic) words for an interview. Are you ready?

The two magic words are: “For example …”

That’s right. State your claim, then immediately back it up with your specific proof, beginning the sentence with the two magic words. There is a legal concept with accompanying terms that addresses this issue. The terms are “claim” and “warrant.” A claim is a statement that claims something. In this case, the claim is that the job candidate is an expert in their field of preparation and training. The warrant is the supporting documentation that backs up the claim. The warrant is a kind of proof, but not as strong as scientific proof.

In this example, I suggested that she point back to her student teaching and be review all she had learned. She could create a list of claims about what she knew, what she could do and how her thinking and approach to students and teaching had changed. For each claim, she needed a “For example …”

I’m happy to say she called back in about a week with a good report: they loved her in the interview and she got her dream job. Knowing how the interview systems work, I’m pretty confident her new approach won her points that earned her the teaching position. This approach can do the same for you if you are diligent and adequately prepare.

Hope you enjoyed this tip. Now get out there and demonstrate that you are the expert you really are.

It is personality that determines whether that boss across from the desk decides to hire you or not. He knows what makes work bearable from day to day is the personalities of the people who must work together. If you’re not going to be workable, guess what? You won’t be working.

It’s personality that determine if that next customer will buy from you, either in person or from the copy you’ve written for your personality is smeared all across everything you do.

The reason, IMHO, why personality is rarely addressed in corporate or any bureacratic setting, is because they cannot train you to have a good personality. You either got one or you ain’t, baby. Well, I’m not sure I believe what I just wrote.

I think one can change aspects of their personality.

It begins with focus and honest self-assessment. If we pay attention to our values, goals, attitudes, dispositions, etc., we then stand a chance of changing those things. Many of us live “the unexamined life” and can gain powerful, paradigm-changing insights by examining said life.

I had a student once in an introductory university class. He came to class unshaven, uncombed, and in wrinkled, less-than-fresh clothes. When I called on him, he would answer with a grunt. A year later, I passed through the outer office of my suite and saw him sitting and waiting for an appointment. I couldn’t believe my eyes. He was well-dressed, his hair was clean and professionally cut. He had a trimmed beard that flattered his face. Moreover, he had trimmed down and looked fit.

I sat beside him on the sofa and said, “What happened to you?”

He said, “I’ve been working on myself.” Boy, had he!

He went on to pursue a Masters degree in German through a cooperative program in Germany–something that would have never happened for the student I first met in the introductory class.

So I think a personality can change. I know I’ve changed mine in significant ways many times in my life. In fact, each new challenge seems to require some changes in that very-hard-to-define thing called personality. The change begins with focus and insights about the external challenges and the internal me.

In field internships, I sometimes had the occasion to tell an intern, “If your current personality is not cutting it, change it.” And–some did.

To your ever-changing and improving personailty . . .

-Rich