Hiring the Best

Can you think of a more important role of a leader than hiring the best people ?  So why do we continue to use an approach to selecting employees that at best may be a waste of time?

In a Boston Globe article, Sarah Laskow states, "Though employers have been slow to catch on, studies since the early 1980s have shown that, when compared with other types of tests, unstructured interviews are one of the worst choices for accurately judging how well a particular person will do at a particular job."

It seems we have a misguided view of our ability to judge someone's ability through a short meeting.  As Jason Dana, a Yale management professor has said, “The assumption is, if I meet them, I’ll know." But we know through our experiences, that we have made our share of mistakes in hiring by basing too much emphasis on the job interview.

While Laskow does not suggest we completely jettison the job interview, she does offer some suggestions for hiring the best people.  Based on her suggestions and my experiences, I offer these recommendations when hiring:

*  Dispense of unstructured questions, and carefully construct thought provoking questions that require deep thought.

*  Dig into the candidate's past job performance for actual data.  With more and more school and teacher level data available to the public, this data acquisition should become increasingly less challenging.

*  Require the candidate to perform job-relevant tasks.  If the job requires teaching, have the candidate teach a group of students.

*  And, of course, follow up with references.  I like to go at least two deep in references.  By that, I mean ask each reference to provide the name of another person who has worked with the candidate.  Then ask that person to give the name of another person to contact.

While we will never be able to totally eliminate hiring mistakes, thoughtful consideration of our hiring procedures could lower our risk.  

“Ban the Job Interview!” by Sarah Laskow in The Boston Globe, Nov. 24, 2013 (p. K3), no free e-link available

Chicken or Egg

It's the classic "chicken or egg" argument. Which comes first, results or resources?

Policy makers sometimes come down on the side of simply demanding results. They reason that by simply designating the end results and holding people accountable more people will work harder, and thereby positive results will follow.

On the other end of the spectrum, we educators respond that we need the resources to effectively carry out these more stringent accountability standards. Higher standards and more testing alone are like trying to fatten cows by simply weighing them more often.  Without needed resources (feed, water, proper pasture, etc.), weighing them more will not produce the desired results.

Like most other complex processes, educating people is not as simple as many try to make it.  Correct answers don't lie in succinct sound bites that may garner votes, but instead in well thought-out solutions that hold people accountable for results, but also provide the resources needed to obtain results.

We educators must accept the fact that accountability is not a passing fad. With modern technology and a better understanding of value added, we will always be held accountable for results. Let's embrace that.

A new role for educational leaders is to educate the public about the correlation between resources and results. Through action research, we must show the public that when the proper resources are provided and rightly utilized, the results will be learning for all children.

Education Malpractice

Malpractice is defined as improper, illegal, or negligent professional activity or treatment, esp. by a medical practitioner, lawyer, or public official.  Medical malpractice can cost the lives of patiences and is widely litigated, but what about the long term effective of education malpractice? 

By education malpractice I mean any strategy  that educators utilize in spite of research that clearly demonstrates the strategy does not work.  One prominent example of education malpractice is our habit of one-shot workshops with no follow-up.  School districts continue to host or send teachers to workshops with no follow-up coaching.  We know intuitively, by experience, and through research that these "one shot affairs" have very little impact on teacher or student learning.  So why do we continue this malpractice?

Maybe we continue this behavior because it makes us feel we have done something to attack a problem.  For instance, if our problem is our teachers are not properly analyzing student data to improve teaching and learning, we may send a group of teachers to a workshop that teaches them to better analyze and use student data.  The teachers are excited about attending the workshop, and we as school leaders feel we have done "something" to attack the problem.  But the sad truth is that with no follow up coaching, very little change will probably occur.

So what should we do?  I propose that we should utilize our limited resources to attack fewer problems with more in-depth strategies.  Instead of utilizing our resources for a number of workshops on a myriad of subjects, we should attack one problem at a time with training and the all important follow-up that will truly change teacher behavior and impact student learning.

Positive Deviants

A seasoned administrator once told me that he had visited many schools during his career, and that regardless of the academic performance of the individual school, he always picked up some good ideas during those visits.

Although he did not use the term, he was referring to a phenomenon social scientists call "positive deviants."  A positive deviant is a person who is getting results that deviate in a positive direction from the norm.  For example, a teacher in a high poverty, low performing school who is getting excellent student test results would be considered a positive deviant.

In an article in the Kappan Journal, Arvind Singhal, suggest that one high leverage strategy for improving an organization's bottom line is to identify positive deviants, document what they are doing, and then replicate those strategies throughout the organization.

As school leaders, we know through data and observations those teachers who are getting the highest student learning results.  Armed with this information, we could then document what they are doing and guide other teachers to adopt those strategies.  Because of potential jealously of their colleagues, we probably need to find subtle ways to replicate what these positive deviants are doing without calling undue attention to them.

This no cost, research proven improvement strategy, when wisely employed, could improve our bottom line - learning.

“Uncovering Innovations That Are Invisible in Plain Sight” by Arvind Singhal in Phi Delta Kappan, November 2013 (Vol. 95, #3, p. 28-33)

Will Content Knowledge Alone Make You An Effective Teacher?

Our profession gets very little respect from the general public.  Low pay and tough working conditions are indicators of the dearth of respect for the teaching profession.  This negative attitude towards educators can also be seen in the common argument that anyone with content knowledge can be an effective teacher.  While content knowledge is critically important, we all can site case after case of people who have superior content knowledge, but are abject failures as teachers.

Many skills are evident in great teachers.  Some of these are content knowledge, knowledge of child development and motivational strategies, planning, assessing learning, and relational skills.

A recent study of the kind of knowledge that makes science teachers effective found that the teacher's subject matter knowledge is an important predictor of student learning.  However this knowledge goes only so far.  The more intriguing finding from the study was that "teachers who were able to predict students' misconceptions and wrong answers are more effective than those who cannot."  The authors conclude, "A teacher knowing only the scientific 'truth' appears to have limited effectiveness."

As leaders in education, we know both intuitively and by experience that master teachers are not only content experts, but they also have a deep understanding of the teaching and learning process.  Now we have even more scientific research that affirms this.

"The Influence of Teachers' Knowledge on Student Learning in Middle School Science Classrooms" by Philip Sadler, et.al. in American Educational Research Journal, October, 2013(Vol. 50, # 5, pp. 1020-1049)

Swarm Intelligence

If you were given a problem to solve and access to individuals to help find a solution, would you prefer a group of high performers or a more intellectually diverse group?  Most of us would cast our lot with the high performers, but some research from a fairly esoteric construct called "swarm intelligence" would call our decision into question.

Swarm intelligence was first noted in ants, schools of fish, and flocks of birds.  There has also been fairly extensive scientific research on swarm intelligence in humans.

One example of this research was carried out by a team who asked visitors to a science museum to play a marble guessing game - requiring them to estimate how many marbles were in a jar.  A paper published in Animal Behavior  (Krause, 2011) detailing the results of the study stated that "a group of individually high performers can be outcompeted by a same size group of low performers."  They also found that "adding diversity to a group can be more beneficial  than adding expertise."

The next time you face a problem in your organization, try adding diversity to the problem solving team.  This could do two good things.  First, it might help you find a better solution to the problem.  Second, it could really embolden some often overlooked employees to feel validated in their jobs.

Stefan Krause, et. al,  "Swarm intelligence in humans: diversity can trump ability," Animal Behavior, Volume 81. Issue 5, May 2011, Pages 941-948

Skin to Skin, Part 2

Changing a norm is difficult.  Simply put, a norm is normal to us and is deeply embedded in the culture.  Have you ever seen a new leader attempt to lead change and fail miserably because the culture "ate" all the aspiring leader's strategies and plans for breakfast?

In my last blog, I wrote that hypothermia is a leading cause of child mortality in third world countries and that the implementation of one simple strategy could drastically reduce infant deaths.  But the life saving strategy of quickly getting the newborn "skin to skin" with the mother has been very difficult to gain widespread acceptance in these countries. This is because it would mean changing the practice of a deeply held norm.

How does all this apply to leadership in education?  If a simple, cost neutral strategy that could save a child's life is difficult to implement, how much more difficult is it for school leaders to lead change in areas that, while they are important, are not immediately life threatening?  We know it is extremely difficult and calls for strategies that are not widely practiced.

In their classic book on leading change, Patterson, et. al. (2007) make the point that verbal persuasion and rewards are widely practiced change strategies but are really not very effective.  What does work?

They state that people will change their behavior if they believe it is worth it and if they believe they can do it.  So the leader's job is to convince people the change is worth it, and make sure they have the skills to do it.

According to Patterson and his colleagues, strategies that tap into intrinsic, personal motivation are much more effective in lasting behavior changing.  One example would be stories that make a connection between a person's current behavior and resulting negative outcomes.  Jesus used stories (parables) to lead people to a commitment of lasting behavior change.

The authors cite many other strategies for effectively influencing behavior change such as skill development, social motivation (peer pressure), and environmental changes.

We educators are in the change business. While that work is complex, it is not impossible.  But in order to lead, we must read.  I recommend you read and study Influencer, the Power to Change Anything as you lead change.

Patterson, K., et. al. (2008) Influencer the Power to Change Anything. McGraw Hill.