By Robert E. Quinn
I very seldom hear a sentence that haunts me. But for the last few weeks I have been wrestling with such a sentence.
A few weeks ago the family was together and we were having a discussion about the childhood experiences of some of our children. The conversation began to focus on one of their teachers. About twenty years ago, in elementary school, two of them were taught by a then new teacher named Ms. Roth. She turned out to be the most effective teacher any of our children ever had. Her influence was transformational. She supported them while holding extraordinary standards and they grew in knowledge, capacity and self-esteem.
Even though she only taught two of our children, we all had stories to tell about this extraordinary teacher. It was energizing to share accounts of a young person who made so much difference. In the midst of this celebratory discussion, my son-in-law made a simple observation.
“Of course, if an education school studied what she did as a teacher, the school would still not be able to produce others like her.”
A Problem- Focused Reaction
The room went quiet. No one argued. Talking about Ms. Roth was interesting because she was not normal. Education schools do not produce people like her on a regular basis. So the sentence seemed depressingly correct. The conversation shifted to another topic.
That was some weeks ago. Yet I still think of that sentence, and I ask, why can’t education schools produce excellent teachers, people who not only inform but also transform their students?
There is something tragic about the question. First, across the world, every school child could be elevated by having a Ms. Roth. There is a need for such teachers. Second, education schools have been in business for a very long time, why can’t they produce teachers who are transformational?
Unfortunately this sense of tragedy is not limited to education schools. It applies to all professional schools, so this issue gets particularly close to home. As a business school professor, I also have to ask, why can’t business schools produce transformational leaders?
My critics might answer, they already are. A search of the web will reveal new leadership initiatives at cutting edge schools in business, education and other disciplines. It is, always has been, and always will be in fashion to declare that a school is working on new ways to develop leaders.
I have been thinking about this for thirty years and I believe I could produce a rather insightful set of arguments about why most such efforts fail. I feel a strong temptation to try and to do so. Yet I am making a conscious decision to not engage is such an analysis. Why?
Problems with Problems
The analysis would confirm that there is a problem to solve. Instead of empowering creative action, my arguments would lead to finger pointing, defensiveness and counter arguments. Everyone, including me, would be in a reactive stance. In the end, the debate would confirm the obvious. There are enormous barriers to excellence. Excellence is, by definition, deviance from the norm. [1] There are powerful structures that channel behavior. Even if we wanted to change things none of us has the power to do what needs to be done. The system is bigger than all of us. We have no power.
So this post is not so much about leadership programs as it is about how organizations change. Most change conversations start with problem definitions and eventually end in patterns of conflict. Perhaps this is why more than 50% of all change initiatives in organizations fail. Fifty is a very large number and it raises a question; is it possible that in 2010, after thousands of years of experience, that we do not know how to effectively talk about or execute change in organizations?
I think the answer is yes and that is why I have to exercise a great deal of self control and avoid the temptation to tell you what is wrong with professional schools. Doing so would be normal. Normal thinking does not produce excellence. So what is the alternative?
A New Way to Approach an Old Question
Perhaps a key is to consciously change myself. Instead of reacting to the statement of my son-in-law, instead of wallowing in my sense of tragedy, instead of engaging in analytic problem solving and telling others what they are doing wrong, perhaps I could transform myself. Perhaps I could consciously change my emotional and cognitive state and then entice others to join me in a new kind of conversation.
I could ask myself questions like these: What result do I want to create? What would my story be if I were living up to the values I expect of others? How do others feel about this situation? What are three or four strategies I could use to accomplish my purpose for this situation? [2]
As soon as I ask these questions, even before I answer them, I begin to feel more proactive. I also feel more authentic, more loving and more willing to learn. My normal, psychological state alters and, almost immediately I get new. The new perspective alters my questions:
- What capacity did Ms. Roth have before she entered the university?
- What experiences did she have in her university life that elevated her capacity?
As I ask these questions, more insights emerge. First it occurs to me that everyone has transformational potential. Second, some people have experiences that unleash their potential. Third, professional schools, by accident or by design, do produce people of transformational potential. Ms. Roth is evidence of this. She graduated from an education school. The school must have had at least some role in increasing her transformational capacity. While professional schools are designed to do what they do, along the way there are certain professors, classes, assignments, internships, lunch discussions, social activities and educational accidents that may help develop transformational potential.
If these events can be better understood, appreciated and valued, they can become self-amplifying. Imagine a school that that actually wanted to produce transformational people. Instead of analyzing why they are not succeeding they could analyze how they are succeeding. The discoveries would not be just facts. They would be inspirational facts, facts that empower and energize further positive thought and action. [3]
A Change in Perspective
Note that with this perspective there is a surprising shift in the logic of change. My son-in-law noted that the study of what Ms. Roth did as a teacher was unlikely to result in the school having the capacity to produce other people like her. He is probably right. There is extensive research on what transformational people do. Yet this knowledge has not led to the emergence of educational schools or business schools that produce transformational people. Knowledge is necessary but insufficient.
I am suggesting two shifts. The first is from a negative focus to a positive focus. The second is from analyzing what others do to analyzing what we do.
Transformational power in individuals derives from specifying purpose, clarifying values, enriching relationships and moving forward while self-monitoring and adjusting in real time. Transformational organizations are made up of subsets of people doing this same thing in a roughly connected manner.
The original sentence might be altered:
“If a professional school wants to produce transformational students, studying what the school is currently doing exceptionally well may inspire a desire and elevate the capacity to produce such students.”
I suspect this logic extends form professional schools to all organizations. Organizations can become incubators of transformational people when they decide that is what they want to do and when they seek to amplify their already existing strengths.
[1] See Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. 2003. Positive Deviance and Extraordinary Organizing. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline: 207-224. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler; and Quinn, R. E. 1996. Deep Change: Discovering the Leader Within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[2] Quinn, Ryan W. & Robert E. Quinn (2009). Lift: Becoming a Positive Force in Any Situation. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
[3] Cooperrider, David L., Diana Whitney & Jacqueline M. Stavros (2003). Appreciative Inquiry Handbook. Bedford Heights, Ohio: Lakeshore Publishers.
Bob, Thanks for your provocative post. One extraordinary example of an organization with a positively deviant approach to teaching and training teachers is Teach For America. Their mission is to help ensure that all children in America have an excellent education and they develop new teachers using their “teachers as leaders” rubric, which relies heavily on positive practices, although they don’t necessarily label them as such. I think that they are a great example of an organization that has been able to examine successful teachers and create a program to replicate their success. They have their failures, to be sure – not every teacher they trains succeeds, but the majority of them do.
I agree that often times, professional schools and professionals in them are asking the wrong questions and chasing the wrong goals – often unwittingly. I personally find the phrase “Imagine if….” and then brainstorming the possibilities to be a great catalyst to get away from normal. I also find that reflecting on my values and what I want to achieve in this world while I’m here help provide the positive energy to pull me away from the day-to-day and dream of the extraordinary. And of course, the more like-minded colleagues I have around me, the more successful I am in staying in the positive zone and sustaining the energy required not to be sucked back into normal. So, how can we help professional schools recruit and engage people who are willing to keep asking “what if?….”