As I am not currently employed outside the
home, I decided to write about how I have changed in terms of strategy in my
quest to become a great leader. I
started my professional life as a teacher, and that is where I first discovered
that changes in the way companies or classrooms were run were happening. While pursuing my undergraduate degree I
realized that the day of compartmentalized education were over. The new was of teaching and thinking was more
interdisciplinary and connected among all the subjects; math was no longer only
talked about during math class, it was present in history and science across
the board.
When I think back to my days of schooling, I
remember my classes being more inline with the Obolensky’s (2014) idea of the
functional silo. He defined the
functional silo as “in the organization, work is strictly organized along
functional specialisms” (p.23). When
applied to teaching, this concept implies that certain teachers taught certain
subjects with no overlap or cooperative learning. Inside each subject matter there were levels
of hierarchy, such as department heads and chairs as well as committee leaders
and liaisons to different boards within the school district. This way of running a school program and
teaching for that matter was exhausting.
It seemed every time I turned for help someone new was in power or held
a different office. This type of set up
became very difficult to negotiate and even more difficult to control, the
trend then moved from heads of departments and boards to having committees that
multiple people sat on.
With the implementation of committees, teachers
were able to approach any member of the committee with an issue and that person
would bring it up at the next meeting.
There was no need to search out a specific person to report problems
to. This made communication easier and more
streamline, as Obolensky (2014) described in his cross-functional matrices
“reporting and processes are efficient and centralized function are slimmed
down” (p.25). During this time, teacher
were also realizing that working together across subject matter was a good
idea, one that could lessen the workload of a classroom teacher and help expand
the scope of teaching material. This was
the time when math/science and English/social studies teams started to
emerge. The subjects were paired of
based on common aspects among them, math and science shared an underlying
foundation of formulas and rules, English and social studies shared a basis in
writing and literature. This set up was
most prominent in the middle and high school levels where there were students
saw multiple teachers during the day.
While this did improve the level of education, there were still gaps in
the system, these gaps would soon be filled.
The next step according to Obolensky (2014) was
the creation of the CAS, which he described as having “clear people processes
and polices, sound and flexible information and communication systems, and
transparent, inclusive and flexible strategy development processes (p.
26). This fit the next stage of middle
school teaching perfectly, the idea of working in four teacher teams. Each student was assigned to a “team” of
teachers, one for each math, science, English, social studies. These teachers all worked together to create
an education based on teamwork and interdisciplinary studies. The idea behind these teams was that the
teachers would have the flexibility to work together but still cover the amount
of content needed to achieve the standards, all while overlapping into other
teachers subjects or bubbles as Obolensky (2014) described.
While I have left the teaching profession, I
take away a few lessons learned. The
idea that people (students) are best lead (taught) when the leader (teacher)
guides rather than dictates still resonates with me. When a leader dictates the followers have
little to no input into their everyday lives.
When leaders provide guidance they instill an ability in their followers
to solve problems on their own instead of relying on someone else. This is the most important lesson for
me. As in teaching, leadership is about
creating great people and giving them the tools they need to succeed. If a leader believes that leadership is all
about them then they are not an effect leader at all. Another aspect of a great leader is their
ability to except and learn from feedback.
As a leader and a teacher I have always been open to feedback as I find
it to be the most beneficial way for learning.
I am not saying that I am always prepared to hear the feedback I have
been given, as sometimes it is difficult to hear, but I do respect the process
and I am respectful to hear how others perceived my actions. As a mother I am the target of unsolicited
feedback on a regular basis. My children
are always telling me how they feel, which sometimes I take with a grain of
salt, however, there are times when I realize from their reactions that what I
meant and what they heard or saw were completely different. This to me is the most valuable learning experience. I hold the same as true in my professional
life, feedback is an important part of being a leader, not only expecting it
but learning from it as well. I hope to
continue to learn and grow as a leader over the next few years and return to
the workforce with the ability to be a great leader.
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive
Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower.
No comments:
Post a Comment