Are we better off with slow, or not at all? Conversations rather than meetings.

     In an earlier post I criticized the common top-down, event style of professional development meant to trigger change in a faculty.   Here we will consider a multi-layer approach.  Success can be designed.  Some will consider this painstakingly slow.  I would counter by noting that in many faculties, nothing really changes after years of professional development events.  Are we better off with slow, or not at all?
     To give a mental picture of the multi-layered approach, one might think of a teacher with an overhead projector (please bear with me).  The teacher is presenting a lesson, perhaps a geography lesson.  One by one individual transparencies are layered on the projector as the teacher adds more detail, checking for understanding as she goes.  The teacher had a final picture in mind, but led the class through a process of layering to achieve common, complete understanding.
     The building leader whose goal is moving the faculty to a new approach must recognize not only the layering or scaffolding path to teaching a new approach, but also the emotional and social needs of the team members.  Team members seldom adopt new approaches just because they learn them, they need to connect with them emotionally as well.  Giving up a time-worn, comfortable approach for a new one requires more than the knowledge of how to do the new one.  It also requires more than the endorsement of a visiting consultant-expert.
     Is the goal compliance or change?   I submit that a building leader will achieve neither with event based professional development.  If the goal is change, consider a multi-layered approach designed to take advantage of the natural rhythm of the faculty.
     Success can be designed through this simple framework:  (1) develop a common vision by reaching out to all for authentic input, (2) develop details as you develop believers, (3) reinforce teacher voice and agency by encouraging alternative ideas in a transparent, fluid process, and (4) empower the team to not only deliver the process, but also the on-going reflection, accountability, and reinforcement.
     A building leader may have a clear vision of change.  The leader may even have a well researched program to implement.  However, the team needs to connect emotionally to the change.  Step one is critical to long term success.  Leaders with a Driver's approach to change must work to be authentic themselves when reaching out to others for authentic input.  A leader with a reputation for forcing his or her agenda on others has a deficit to overcome.  If one's reputation is top-down, the team is likely to become impatient with the leader faking it, appearing to go through the motions of consensus building.  In this model the leader is not selling a pre-determined program, the leader is honestly seeking input about a building-wide issue, establishing teacher agency in the process.
     Step one is best done over weeks of individual conversations.  With a faculty of say one hundred, a leader will need to give each teacher voice by meeting with each person at least once, often twice or more.  The building leader needs to set out to have a series of three or four conversations with at least half of the faculty.  Each faculty member will have had one or two conversations with the leader; approximately half the faculty will have three or more.  Who gets one or two, and who gets more will reveal itself as the conversations proceed.  As the conversations happen, the alert leader will see a network or web of input develop.  This network will gain depth of meaning as the follow up conversations proceed.  In a sense, the leader is a researcher conducting experiments (conversations) to explore options, gain perspective, and develop the final vision.  Additionally, these conversations will be rich with input on not only the vision, but also the pathways to achievement.
     Steps two and three are truly not additional steps, but rather guides to the leader's behavior in step one.  Genuine, frequent adult-to-adult, open-minded conversations will keep the process fluid, demonstrate teacher agency, hone the details, and develop believers.  The leader will know the process is healthy when one conversation leads to others across the network or web of ideas.  It will be tempting to replace individual conversations with meetings of groups.  Avoid the temptation.  Team members need individual voice and an intimate connection to the process and leader.  Group meetings and steering committees look efficient and may give the appearance of buy-in; but they often marginalize many group members and sow seeds of discontent.  If the leader works tirelessly at individual conversations the common vision developed will become an organic way of life for the faculty rather than a program with limited impact.
     As the process moves forward, the leader will begin to see individuals begin to take on the characteristics of the developing vision.  As this happens, the leader may suggest that the faculty members share their fresh experiences with one another.  Let the new vision and processes develop organically as the web of input developed with the leaders one-on-one conversations.  As the faculty members begin to fuel the process of change, the leader promotes greater and greater teacher voice and agency.  The development of teacher agency allows the conversations to move to step four.  Rather than imposing accountability procedures or systems in the organization, the leader moves the conversations to a level of synthesis.  "How do we continue to improve?"  "How can we keep the ball rolling?"  "How can you share that success with others?"  "What advice will you share with others about your experience with your new approach?"
     Success can be designed, but it need not be through a pre-determined program.  Let the conversations be the fuel for building a web of input and natural performance initiatives.
Develop a common vision by reaching out to all for authentic input.
Develop details as you develop believers with frequent, sincere conversations.
Develop teacher voice and agency by encouraging alternative ideas in a transparent, fluid process of conversations, avoiding meetings.
Empower the team to not only deliver the process organically, but also the on-going reflection, accountability, and reinforcement.