How you Lead those you Perceive as Uncommitted? Start by Looking in the Mirror

Dr. Gordy Curphy
President, Curphy Consulting Corp.

How do you Lead those you Perceive as Uncommitted?

Start by Looking in the Mirror

Gordy Curphy, PhD

Curphy Consulting Corporation

        How one leads those perceived to be uncommitted is a critically important question. Unfortunately the knee-jerk responses to this question from people in charge are often something like: “these people are losers”, “they just don’t get it”, or “some of my employees came directly from the Island of the Misfit Toys.”  Although there may be some truth to these assessments, they are essentially variations of blaming the victim. Adopting this attitude effectively absolves the people in charge from taking any responsibility for changing uncommitted followers and developing a deeper understanding of why employees become uncommitted (Argyris, 1991). The purpose of this article is to help readers understand three factors relevant to follower commitment and what they can do get followers reengaged.

The Fundamental Attribution Error

The fundamental attribution error (Millerand and Ross, 1975) comes from social psychology and describes people’s biases when assigning causation to success and failure. Essentially people are biased to credit personal factors for their own successes and blame situational factors or luck for their own failures. Precisely the opposite is true when assigning causality to others; people are more likely to ascribe luck or situational factors to others’ successes and personal factors for others’ failures. This means that if people in charge believe uncommitted followers are failures (and they do) then they are much more likely to attribute character flaws, upbringing, or ethnicity rather than situational factors as the underlying reasons for followers’ low commitment levels. This is unfortunate, as situational factors often play a predominant role in employee commitment and engagement. 

The Freedom to Flee and the Fundamental Attribution Error

There are three critical situational factors affecting follower commitment, and these include the freedom to flee (Hogan, 2007) managerial incompetence (Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy, 2011), and an organization’s performance management system. Hogan (2007) maintains that leadership only matters when followers have some choice to stay or leave an employer. If followers have no option but to more or less work at gunpoint, then leaders’ efforts to build teams or get followers to exert extra effort will fall far short of expectations. And “working at gunpoint” may be much more prevalent than commonly believed. For example, the United States military has an all-volunteer force, and once people sign up they cannot leave until their tours of duty have been completed. They have no say in when and where they go, how often they go, how long they are gone, what they do, and who they work for or with during their entire tour of duty. At this point some military units have been to Iraq or Afghanistan a half dozen times. Given this lack of choice and the number of tours endured it is hardly surprising that some soldiers lack commitment.

The working at gunpoint analogy is not unique to the military. Given an unemployment rate hovering around nine percent, underwater mortgages, non-compete contracts, and a health care system that severely limits mobility, many private sector workers have little real choice in jobs and employers. And with no relief in sight with respect to the economy, the housing market, or serious health care reform, those who are employed feel lucky just to have a job. People with limited occupational freedom may not like the situation and will probably do as they are told, but compliance is a lot different than commitment.

Managerial Incompetence and the Fundamental Attribution Error

            The second major situational factor at play with follower commitment levels is managerial incompetence. Although there are some distinctions between leadership and management, both essentially involve building cohesive, goal-oriented teams and getting results (Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy, 2011; Hogan, 2011). Effective leaders and managers are those who can consistently do both; incompetent managers are those who cannot build teams and/or get results. Research shows the base rate of managerial incompetence may range between 50-75 percent (Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy, 2011; Hogan, 2007).  Readers might think that this estimate is far too high, but if they counted the total number of people they had worked for in the past and identified those of this group they would willingly work for again then this estimate may not be far from the truth. And this ratio of willingly work for/total number of bosses seems to be fairly consistent across both the public and private sectors—most people feel that only a minority of military and civilian leaders are actually any good at it. Research and personal experience suggest that most people in positions of authority are not very good at building teams that actually win. 

Performance Management Systems and the Fundamental Attribution Error

A final situational factor affecting followers’ commitment levels concerns an organization’s performance management system. Most performance management systems consist of two major components: how things get done (i.e., competencies) and what gets accomplished (i.e., results). In many cases flaws in these two components perpetuate the managerial incompetence problem described earlier. To better understand these flaws it is necessary to take a hard look at why people in the public and private sector get promoted. Does an organization’s performance management system promote people because they have demonstrated an ability to build teams that beat the competition or because they never get into trouble and do everything they can to please their bosses?  The group with the best information about a leader’s team building competencies are direct reports, yet they are rarely asked for their inputs. And the results obtained is often of little help in differentiating effective from incompetent managers. This is because the vast majority of metrics found in most organizations are variations of navel-gazing, in that they are nothing more than comparisons against past performance. A team may have generated five percent more revenues or reduced costs by 20 percent from the year before, but the lack of external benchmarks makes it difficult to determine whether these results are any better than those achieved by other teams. It is not hard to see why followers become disenfranchised when the pathway to their boss’ career success is being a dutiful suck up who focuses on obtaining results that do not really matter.

How to Turn Around Uncommitted Followers

Managerial incompetence, a lack of occupational choice, and poor performance management systems are in and of themselves enough to drive followers to compliance rather than commitment. But when a revolving door of bad bosses is combined with an inability to flee then committed followers may actually be more the exception than the rule. And there is quite a bit of evidence to show that employee commitment levels are at all time lows. Employee satisfaction and engagement levels as measured by organizational surveys are lower than ever before (Aon Consulting, 2011) and the military has to offer ever greater incentives to get soldiers to re-enlist (Associated Press, 2007; Army Times, 2009). These results speak volumes about the pervasiveness of the uncommitted employee problem.  

No doubt there are some followers who remain uncommitted no matter who is in charge and how much freedom they have to leave. But this group is likely a small minority—most people come to work to succeed. So what can people in charge do to change the situational factors affecting follower commitment? Perhaps the first and most important step is to look into the mirror. Far too many people in positions of authority believe they are leadership legends in their own minds but are seen as charismatically challenged in the eyes of others. Shrinking the gap between self and others’ perceptions and improving those skills needed to build teams and get results are vital for people wanting to create committed followers. Yet getting accurate feedback about one’s strengths and shortcomings is not as easy as it may seem. It is relatively easy to administer 360-degree feedback surveys, but the accuracy of these ratings, particularly when direct reports have limited occupational choice, can be suspect (Curphy, 1991). Direct reports are likely to provide glowing ratings when the sword of Damocles is hanging over their heads, and more often than not bosses pull punches and peers can be too far removed from a ratee’s day-to-day work behaviors to have much confidence in the accuracy of their ratings. The end result is that most leaders may think they are doing a good job, have “data” to back up this belief, yet still be in charge of a sizable number of uncommitted followers.

Those in positions of authority who are truly interested in getting some unadulterated feedback about their leadership effectiveness should go through a comprehensive managerial assessment process (Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy, 2008).  This process typically consists of a structured interview, mental abilities tests, personality and work values inventories, various work simulations, and 360-degree feedback. These particular components assess many of the leading causes of managerial incompetence and provide participants with a more accurate and comprehensive picture of their ability to build teams and get things done through others.

Because most employees want to win and tend to rebel against a lack of choice, there are several other things leaders can do to improve follower commitment levels. One of these involves setting and being held accountable for team goals that are benchmarked against comparable teams. Given the abundance of information that is available through the Internet it is possible to find benchmarking data for just about every goal imaginable. Working with direct reports to set team goals and benchmarks, create strategies and tactics to achieve these goals, and conduct periodic reviews of goal progress are fundamental but often overlooked steps in teaching teams how to win. These actions also provide direct reports with some degree of choice, and whenever possible leaders need to provide direct reports with latitude to make the decisions needed to get tasks accomplished. As George S. Patton once said, “Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.“

In conclusion, it is entirely possible to create teams of loyal and committed direct reports. But to do so people in positions of authority need to avoid blaming the victim and instead give serious thought to how their own behaviors, a lack of choice, and faulty performance management systems contribute to the creation of uncommitted followers.  Many of the actions needed to create engaged employees are directly under leader’s control; whether he or she chooses to do anything about it is another matter.

References

Aon Hewitt. (2011). Trends in Global Employee Engagement.  Chicago, IL: Author.

Argyris, C. (1991). “Teaching Smart People How to Learn.”  Harvard Business Review. Reprint Number 91301.

Army Times, “Army Bonuses”, 2009, http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/army_bonuses_070910w/.

Associated Press. “Military Pay Soars.”  April 11, 2007, http://military.com/NewsContent

Curphy, G.J. (1991). “Some Closing Remarks about the Use of Self- and Other-Ratings of Personality and Behaviors.” In M.D. Dunnette (Chair), Multi-rater Assessment Systems: What We’ve Learned.  99^th American Psychological Association Convention, San Francisco, CA.

Hogan, R.T. (2007). Personality and the Fate of Organizations. Mahawh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hogan, R.T. (2011).  Leadership 101: A Brief Interview with Dr. Robert Hogan.  Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. 

Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., & Curphy, G.J. (2011). Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience (7^th ed.).  Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., & Curphy, G.J. (2008). Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience (6^th ed.).  Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Millerand, D.T. & Ross, M. (1975) “Self-Serving Biases in the Attribution of Causality: Fact or Fiction?” Psychological Bulletin, 82, pp. 213-225.

How to lead the “uncommitted”?

Dr. Theodore Ryan
Consulting Professor of Ethics
Fuqua School of Business
Duke University

Dr. Joe LeBoeuf
Professor of the Practice of Managment
Fuqua School of Business
Duke University

How to Lead the Uncommitted?

This is an interesting and important question, since it certainly seems  that there are a lot of these uncommitted kinds of folks in the world of work. We may use different names for them, such as  uninspired, unmotivated , uncommitted or just disengaged.   One of the number one issues in corporate life is the lack of employee engagement at work. Estimates run as high as 70% for worker lack of engagement.  This employee disengagement translates into a trillion dollars a year in lost revenue.  And, who do we blame?  Of course, it is those damned uncommitted!  But, in reality, all this may very well be just a convenient excuse for a lack of effective leader and managerial behavior, and not, at its heart, an issue of a lack of commitment on the part of employees.  How can it be a leadership issue?

 Leadership, at its core, is an influence process: leaders influence others’ behavior by providing purpose, motivation and direction.  One could argue that leaders cannot really motivate others --- that is another’s choice.  What leaders really do is to provide purpose, inspiration, reduce organizational barriers, and create the enabling conditions for others to be motivated; executing their choice.  So, leading is about inspiring others to be motivated:  to find identity and meaning in their work, to find their “firm persuasion”, and ultimately to be their best selves every day.   

Viktor Frankl, a Nazi death camp survivor and world re-known psychiatrist, wrote a classic book called Man’s Search for Meaning [1959]. This book tells the chilling and inspirational story of this eminent psychiatrist, who was imprisoned at Auschwitz and other concentration camps for three years during the Second World War. Immersed in great suffering and loss, Frankl began to wonder why some of his fellow prisoners were able not only to survive the horrifying conditions, but to grow as human beings in the process. Frankl's general conclusion, from this crucible experience, was that human behavior was driven by a will to meaning; to find meaning and to make a difference, even under the worst of life conditions. 

In his subsequent research in the years following his release, he discovered that an overwhelming number of the survivors he surveyed had a strong desire and commitment to make a difference outside their selves -- to matter in the larger human community.  From his research and [emerging support from  others -- not clear what this means],  humans are not inherently disposed to being  uncommitted, but are inherently committed and goal-directed, given the right enabling conditions [which are created by leaders] to be their better selves, and do good things.

David Whyte [2001] suggests in his book, Crossing the Unknown Sea: Work as a Pilgrimage of Identity that the pursuit of good work, which occupies much of our waking lives, as two major impacts.  First, good work creates the conditions for shaping our identity as human beings. Who we are becomes in large measure a function of what work we choose to do.  The meaning that is created by our work, is the meaning we attach to our sense of self, our identity and becomes an  important guide for our behavior.  As John Ruskin put it, “The highest reward for man’s toil is not what he gets from it, but what he becomes by it.”

Additionally, through work, we are enabled in finding our firm persuasion or motivation to matter, the will to meaning in Frankl’s terms, and to make a difference in the world.   “To have a firm persuasion in our work – to feel that what we do is right for ourselves and good for the world at the exactly same time – is one of the great triumphs of human existence.” [Whyte, 4].  Creating the enabling conditions that allow for others to choose good work, and find this firm persuasion to grow and develop, is the responsibility of leaders and managers, and a critical aspect of inspirational leadership.

So, let’s talk about the components of inspirational leadership that create the conditions for commitment to a firm persuasion.  Yes, this places a critical motivational accountability on the leader and manager. Leaders are not leaders when they resort to unfair labeling of employees as uncommitted.

Leadership in general, inspirational leadership specifically, begins with understanding how we view the nature of human behavior.   In his seminal article, The Human Enterprise [1961], McGregor was the first to examine how our notions of human behavior shape the nature of how leaders and managers behave towards others.  He introduced the notion of Theory X and Theory Y as specific categories of perspectives on human behavior at work.  Theory X suggests that humans are lazy, lack motivation, are indolent, and not committed to hard work.  The leadership and managerial behavior, which emerges out of this point of view, is designed to create policies and structure that are controlling, directing; it becomes a transactional process.    

On the other hand, Theory Y embraces a completely different view: humans are not inherently lazy, unmotivated, or indolent, but rather are goal-directed and desirous of mattering and making a difference.   The leadership and managerial behavior that emerges out this point of view, is designed to enable this natural human behavior, and create the conditions that allow folks to reach their potential as human beings; it becomes a transformational process.  So, the first question that leaders and managers need to ask themselves is: What is your perspective on the nature of human behavior at work?  This perspective will frame a leader’s behavior towards others in the work place.

Inspirational leadership is also shaped by how the leader views the execution of work.  Leaders who do not have a positive view of human motivation [e.g. Theory X point of view] create the conditions that treat others as simply a means to get work done, regardless of the impact the work has on those who are doing it.  These leaders only care about the work, how getting it done benefits them, and not the human beings doing the work.  These leaders focus on creating the necessary rules, policies, procedures and transactions to insure that the work gets done, regardless of whether the work being done is interesting, challenging, or meaningful; all critical elements that enable commitment and engagement on the part of others. These kinds of leaders treat their employees, not as humans, but solely as human resources.

On the other hand, leaders who embrace a more inspirational perspective, associated with a Theory Y point of view, understand that the work must get done, but the manner in which it gets done is important.   These leaders understand that getting the work done is important, but insuring that the work is challenging and meaningful to those doing it is as important.   They recognize the importance of the development of others, and are motivated by a desire to create the conditions for others to not only get the work done well, but to do so in a way that is developmental, and enables others to be their best selves.     Additionally, inspirational leaders create the conditions in which others become willing to help others with their work and to also work in the organizational “white space” – to do work that is not specific to anyone’s assigned role, but is necessary for the enterprise to be successful.   They leverage the notion that people are committed, want to do well and the right thing, but just need the right conditions to enable the process.

Given that inspirational leadership can raise the level of employee engagement dramatically, is it still true that there are “uncommitted” people out there?  Yes. People vary. We exhibit individual differences. According to Frankl, some people at Auschwitz survived because they had a great sense of meaning, while others, with a weaker sense of meaning, did not. Some people exhibit more achievement drive than others. Our point, though, is that the uncommitted, those who do not want to work hard, learn and grow are in the great minority. And experience shows that even with many of these people, inspirational leadership can provide the catalytic spark.

Inspirational [and competent] leaders have another important motivational role to play in order to maximize the commitment potential of each employee. Inspirational leaders must seek to optimize the match between each employee’s preferences, needs and goals, on the one hand, with the mission and work to be done by the organization. Inspirational leaders get to know each employee very well, and then these leaders work very hard at finding the kinds of work that best suit each employee. The matching cannot be perfect, of course, but employees greatly appreciate that their leader is even trying to make the match.

So, the bottom line here is that the answer the question we first proposed – How to lead the “uncommitted”? –  lies with the leader. It is not that people are inherently uncommitted. The problem is that far too often leader and managerial behavior creates the conditions that get in the way of people’s true motivation to be their best selves, and to do good work.   Leaders ought not to look outside themselves and label others, but ought first to look at their own leadership and managerial behavior.  Leaders must ask themselves, “Am I committed to those whom I lead?”

Are They Really Uncommitted?

 Robert E. Kelley

Tepper School of Business
Carnegie Mellon University

The initial premise: "How do you lead the perceived to be uncommitted?" is problematic. It begs the question: "To what (or whom) are they uncommitted?" Are the individuals uncommitted as a life stance or are they uncommitted to what you want them to be committed. In my experience, very few folks are truly uncommitted. Yes, some lost souls do populate the planet, but they almost never join organizations, especially organizations that demand participation, such as the military. The act of joining, all by itself, requires motivation and commitment. Some folks might not fully realize what the demands of the commitment are, others might make the commitment lightly, and a few may be very motivated to un-do their decision to join -- but they are not "uncommitted."

The issue, then, is perhaps better stated: how do you lead people who are committed to something other than what you want them to be committed. Or, they may share your commitment, but at a lower level of intensity. When my followership research started 30 years ago, I distinguished between followers who were committed to the organization and those who did not share that commitment. We were careful, however, to remember that someone who appears uncommitted is probably committed to something else. Consider the difference between a patriotic, duty bound soldier and a mercenary. One is committed to the country and its values; the other is not. But the mercenary is not uncommitted by a long shot. He or she may be committed to money, power, the adrenaline rush of action, or even a cause of some sort.

Step 1: Take a Cue from the Tailor

Top notch tailors, drawing upon skill and experience, can size up people pretty well. But, even so, they always measure and re-measure the customer each time she or he comes in for a new purchase. Likewise good leaders "measure" their "followers" (or those under your command). The first step, then, is to not make two problematic assumptions: 1) that you "know" or can intuit what drives your people, and 2) that your followers share your commitment. Chances are you have an incomplete picture of both.

One of your first jobs as a leader is to understand what motivates your subordinates. Why did they join the larger organization? How does their membership help them meet some goal (or multiple goals)? What is that goal: self-esteem, escape from their prior life, parental approval, money, future career progression, or something else entirely? Are they primarily moving away from or, instead, toward .

something? What are their personal goals outside of the organization? How do their organizational membership and success tie into those larger life goals?

While gathering goal knowledge, also learn about what they find rewarding. A big mistake that many large organizations make is "one-size-fits-all" reward systems. The reality is that some people are motivated more by money while others prefer promotions. Ribbons make some people feel special, while a hand written note to the family makes another beam. Also, find out what is punishing for those rare times you have to resort to it. Canceling weekend leave has little effect on someone who has nowhere to go. A strong chewing out may cause a meltdown in some, while it is water on a duck’s back to others. People also have a tendency to prefer either internal or external rewards/punishments. Those who derive their own rewards are very different than those who look to others for strokes. Learning the very individualized psychological, social, and economic rewards of each follower gives you the connections you need between someone’s goals and the action required to achieve those goals.

This more global understanding of motivation and rewards forms the foundation for leading them day-to-day. How does their specific job in your unit tie into their larger motivational scheme? How do the rewards of their job overlap with their personal reward system? What can you do to more closely match what they want and what you have at your disposal to offer?

Step 2: Take a Cue from the Coach

Every good coach must make decisions as to which players are let on the bus for the game. The first decision involves who to leave home because they either lack the skills to contribute or they lack commitment to the team. For the players on the bus, the coach must distinguish between three levels of commitment: those who get dressed for the game but don’t really want to play, those who play but are OK with losing, and those that give their all to winning.

A common mistake, as we saw above, is for leaders to assume that their followers have the same goals and commitments. At best, you will have large overlaps. But, except in a very few instances (and usually when life and death are at stake), there is a divergence. What you want out of your temporary shared experience is probably quite different than what they want. You might see a career ahead of you, when, more than likely, they see a job. These differences matter.

Even when you share the same goals and motivations, the intensity of your commitment will likely vary. While you may want to maximize performance, they might deem it better to do what my late colleague (and Nobel Laureate) Herb Simon labeled "satisficing," that is, to do it just good enough. So, your challenge is to know their commitment level. This is the base from which you build.

Step 3: Take a Cue from the Star Followers

My study of star followers has yielded many important lessons for leaders. Foremost is that too many leaders think that people are following them because they are, well, such great leaders. They have the "right stuff," and people just naturally follow it. Or they believe that their organizational role gives them the "right" to expect that people will follow. In contrast, I discovered that the best followers seldom follow people because of who they are or because they occupy an organizational role of leadership. .

Sure, they will carry out decisions, but they do not really follow. Instead, the stars follow goals, causes, ideals, and much less than anyone expected, people who have earned their respect.

To be a good leader, you have to get over yourself. You are not center stage. An important part of your job is to help your people be center stage. As I’ve said many times: "The best leaders are not heroes; they are hero-makers." If a leader needs to be the hero, then step down and let someone else take the job.

It is at this point that leaders can emulate star followers who look to connect with someone who is going to the same place that they are. An important part of the leader’s job is to create a shared context. You now know what drives your followers. Create the bridges from where they are to where you need them to go. Help them see that they can fulfill their dreams by being part of your (or the organization’s) plan.

Step 4: Take a Cue from the Sergeant’s Sales Pitch

Once you’ve identified the bridges between your commitment level to the organization’s goals and the goals/commitments of your subordinates, then you need to communicate them in a compelling way. You can’t expect the links to be obvious. Keep in mind that your "audience" knows you have your own agenda. So you have to put it in a way that is easily understood by them to be in their own self-interest.

During World War II, the U.S. government decided to offer a life insurance policy to the common soldiers. They thought that it would provide an economic cushion to those families left behind by fallen soldiers. The lieutenants were given the job of explaining the policy to their troops. In one particular unit, the lieutenant passed out the papers and went through a very thorough step-by-step explanation of the $10,000 benefit for $6/month ($139,000 and $85/month in 2011 dollars). After his well-reasoned presentation, he got no takers. An old sergeant asked for permission to explain the program. The lieutenant was a bit miffed, but agreed, feeling that the Sarge couldn’t do a better job. Sarge asked a simple question: Who do you think the government is going to send to the front lines first: the ones who would cost $10,000 if they are killed or the ones who would cost nothing." Everyone bought the insurance.

Step 5: Take a Cue from your Committed Followers

Finally, don’t over focus on the uncommitted. Instead, give first attention to the people who are already with the program. They are the foundation for your success, so secure their participation. Use the advice above to get to know what drives them and why they are committed. Which would you rather have: 1) a 95% highly committed team that feels acknowledged and valued by the leader with 5% peripheral, uncommitted players, or 2) a team where the 5% who were uncommitted are now on board, but the rest of the team feels like the squeaky wheels got the oil?

Also, use your committed followers as a resource. Your star followers are your ears and eyes into your unit. They have access to the conversations that you, because of your position of authority, will never have. So, ask them what is going on in the unit and what is with the uncommitted members who are sitting on the fence or dragging their heels. You are not asking them to snitch, but rather, how to build a stronger unit. .

Finally, never forget the power of the group to influence an individual’s behavior. Rather than see yourself as the solution, consider how the group can pull people to perform in desired ways. Peer pressure is a powerful force and must be used with care. But, it does work.

Conclusion

Think of iron shavings scattered randomly on a board. The five steps above (and other complementary strategies) are like a magnet that you pass over them. With each pass, more of the shavings form a line, becoming their own magnet. Eventually, even the farthest most shaving will snap into place.

Leadership: Empowering Others to Achieve More

Mr. Michael Foran
Principal of New Britian High
2012 NASS
Principal of the Year

Leadership: Empowering Others to Achieve More

The challenge for leaders in urban education today, like leaders in many other fields, is to convince people that they capable of far more than they believe they can accomplish. The federal government tells us in the “No Child Left Behind” legislation that 100% of the students in our schools must be proficient in reading and numeracy by 2014. These include students with learning disabilities, students with other disabilities, students facing the challenges of generational poverty and students that have come from a non-English speaking country as little as 10 months ago and that are learning English for the first time as well as all other students. While common sense tells us that this goal is at best unrealistic, reflection brings us to the conclusion that this is the only acceptable goal for an educator to have. If we do not aspire to reach 100% of our students then we are setting our sites to low. As a leader this is easy to say but how do we get those in the trenches, our teachers and ultimate our students, to continuously strive to get closer to this goal when it seems so unrealistic? How do we create a culture of continuous improvement where we are always seeking to get better at what we do? I certainly do not profess to have the answers to these questions but I do understand that the pursuit of these answers is at the very core of being a leader in the position that I am in. I recognize that my job is to lead sometimes skeptical yet almost always committed people who are used to succeeding in a process towards a goal that logic tells us is impossible to reach.

Leading professionals in this process starts with the realization and acknowledgement that I am not the expert on how to get all of our students to achieve at high level, they are. In order to move our institution forward a leader must recognize and build on the talents of those being lead. He must provide the structures that enable all those being lead to use and share their expertise. A good leader develops leadership at all levels of an institution. In the case of a school, we must develop leadership in all members of the administration, teacher leaders, leadership among all other support personnel as well as students leaders. To maximize effectiveness leadership should be assumed by different individuals at different times based on the situation and their strengths. While it is essential that we create structures that allow all members of the school community to share their varied strengths, the leader must ensure these strengths are being used to move the institution towards a single focus. In the case of our high school that focus is that all of our students will graduate college/career ready. It is the responsibility of the leader to ensure that this focus is effectively defined and to demonstrate a commitment to this focus to all stake holders in his words and more importantly in his actions.  

The most effective way to build a culture of continuous improvement and shared leadership is to create structured collaboration with built in mechanisms for accountability. In schools, teachers must be given time to work in teams. The most effective teams are teams of teachers who teach the same subject. Their meetings must be structured with clearly defined norms and outcomes. One outcome of virtually all of these meetings must be a strategy that can be implemented in the classroom the next day. The results of this strategy are then brought back to the team and analyzed by looking at the student work that is generated by the strategy. This analysis leads to a determination of next steps. This becomes a cycle of continuous growth through collaborative analysis of student work. Because all team members are responsible for bringing student work to the meetings there is built in accountability for all team members to each other. The role of the leader evolves as the team grows more effective. Initially these teams require strong leadership but as the members of the team become more comfortable with the process leadership should be transitioned to the team members. Traditionally in schools teachers and other professionals work largely in isolation so this type of teaming can be uncomfortable at first. It is the responsibility of the leader to establish the singular focus of the team and be sure that all members understand that the goal is continuous improvement of student outcomes and it is not means to critique or evaluate teachers. It is designed to build the capacity of the adults through sharing of their expertise in order to improve student achievement.

In a school as important as developing the leadership ability of the adults is developing opportunities for students to lead and support each other. Traditionally students have had leadership roles on sports teams and in clubs and other activities. In order to continuously improve student achievement we must expand that role for students into the classroom. We now recognize that effective instruction involves providing opportunities for students to teach other students. When students are involved in interaction with each other about their learning all students are actively engaged. When students support each other in their learning both the student being supported and the student providing the support are learning at a high level. When students are actively engaged in this way, teachers have the opportunity to listen and monitor for understanding. Teachers who develop student leaders in their classroom and empower those students to support others are far more effective just as school leaders who empower their teachers to lead their peers are more effective. Schools where this type of shared leadership exist are going to be far more successful in creating a culture of continuous improvement and ultimately move more quickly towards their goal of all students achieving at a high level.

Successful leadership in urban education as well as in other areas where the leader must lead skeptical people is challenging. Dictatorial leadership that assumes compliance based on the roles of the individuals in a hierarchy will not bring about the desired outcomes. The leader must clearly provide those he leads with a clear vision based on shared values and a commitment to a shared singular focus on an outcome. The leader must know when to push individuals beyond their comfort zone and when to slow things down. He must know when to celebrate successes and when to look critically at outcomes that do not meet expectations. More importantly, the leader must recognize the strengths and potential strengths of all the members of the institution and find ways to use those strengths. Ultimate leadership is about relationships. The leader must earn the trust of those he leads by being sure that he demonstrates in his actions the same values that he holds others to by his words. While challenging, shared leadership among all stake holders working towards a common goal can be extremely powerful and lead to success well beyond what individuals may think is possible.