I completed my doctorate at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) in May 2022. While enrolled, I compiled the following blog posts, writing assignments, book reviews, and presentations. Topics include taking that leap into the doctoral journey, academic writing, teamwork and how different personalities work within teams, different leadership theories, and achieving organizational change. They are all listed below.
If desired, select one of the links below to go directly to the corresponding article on this page:
Teamwork Alchemy – Finding The Right Formula
The People Pleaser: When Good Intentions Lead to Dysfunction
Committee, We Have A Problem: Operating Without A Mission
TKI Results: How Did We Get Here?
Book Review: Bolman & Deal’s Reframing Organizations
Academic Writing Year One: Chasing Perfection, Accepting Progress
Book Review: Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender
Examining Equity in Higher Education Ignite Presentation
How Character Shapes Ethical Leadership
Book Review: Lake’s Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University
Transformational/Transactional Leadership and Adapting Organizational Culture
Root Cause Analysis of Leadership Changes Amidst COVID-19
Perspectives on Writing: Pinker, Lamott & AOR Rockers
How Writing Supports Strong Leadership
Survey Research Critique: “Preparation or Provocation: Student Perceptions of Active Shooter Drills”
Presentation Formats: Value of the Tried-and-True
2019-2020: Year One
Getting Oriented – May 25, 2019
The Ed.D. Leadership Class of 2022 had its New Student Orientation on Saturday May 18th in Snead Hall at VCU. The Higher Education Online Learning Community is now up and running & working on our pre-assignments in EDLP 700 Effective Learning Networks and EDLP 702 Understanding Self as Leader: Theory and Data Analysis. These pre-assignments include completing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment, creating our ePortfolios, submitting our first blog (EDLP 700) as well as our first first vlog (EDLP 702), and simply taking the time to learn about all the resources we need to be aware of in order to be successful in this online program.
First Day of School. I Hope The Other Kids Like Me. – May 25, 2019
Just as I was about to head out the door to make the hour drive from Fredericksburg to Richmond to attend the Ed.D Leadership Orientation, I had two thoughts. First, I suddenly realized that this was my first day of school in over 15 years. Wow. It’s been a while. Then I thought — I hope the other kids like me. Whether it’s your first day of kindergarten or your first day of a doctoral program, the first day of school is going to generate similar thoughts, anxieties and expectations regardless of one’s age.
I have to imagine that some of my classmates in this cohort were likely feeling the same way. We all know that we’ll be working very closely with one another over the course of the next three years. I find it’s usually helpful to like the people that you work with. It also tends to be helpful if they like you. One didn’t necessarily need to get the agenda in advance to realize that this day was going to contain icebreakers, team building exercises, and very likely some type of group work. For this blog, I’d like to focus on the group work we participated in where randomly selected groups of four had to work together for 10-15 minutes on a hypothetical scenario and then come to a conclusion on how to prioritize the different issues contained within the scenario.
Since this group activity took place at about the halfway point of the day, my initial thought was that it was going to be enjoyable because the half dozen or so individuals I had already spoken with were all friendly, intelligent, enthusiastic, and perhaps most importantly, honest in the sense that we all seemed to be in agreement that none of us had any idea about how this whole “trying to become doctor thing” was going to work out! Unlike when I was in high school and during my first few years of undergraduate school, I don’t mind participating in group work. I’d like to think that it’s due to maturity and a greater sense of confidence in myself, but it’s more likely due to the fact that I’ve been in higher education for the past 19 years and I think at last count I’ve attended approximately 967 meetings, workshops, retreats, and “professional development days.” Group work tends to get easier when the total amount of these type of experiences begins to approach four digits.
After the scenario was presented to everyone in the room, my group immediately got to work sharing our individual opinions on the issues. None of us were shy about jumping right in and going around the table orderly to first share our individual thoughts and ideas. We were all very aware that since we only had a short amount of time to reach our conclusions, there was little time to sit back and ponder things internally before sharing our opinions with the group. It was also apparent that there was little time for too many personal anecdotes — we needed to get to work. Once everyone had expressed their ideas and opinions, we delved further into the conversation in order to come up with a common consensus since we now had less than 10 minutes to share our recommendations with the entire room. I was very impressed with how knowledgeable everyone at my table was and how naturally we all dived right into the work to try to come up with recommendations that made the most sense for the problems presented in the scenario. I allowed myself a few seconds to become optimistic when envisioning the future group work that I would be involved with over the course of the entire Ed.D program. Clearly there will be challenges working in different groups with different people over the next few years, but at least things were starting out on a positive note.
One of the issues within the scenario revolved around an organization’s budget, and everyone at my table seemed to be very astute at understanding the problem. I, on the other hand, do not have a tremendous amount of experience working with budgets so I began to feel a little inadequate during this part of the discussion. Over the years I’ve become adept at recognizing that when I do not know something about a particular subject, that’s OK. No one is expected to know everything about every particular subject. It usually causes me to make a mental note to remember the feeling and then try to learn more about that subject on my own at a later date. But, in the moment, I knew the best thing I could do was to listen to my other team members discuss this issue and try to understand things the best I could.
Another concern I had was the time limit as it was rather constraining considering the scope of the scenario (determining how to have a high school with many first generation college students partner with a local college to develop professional development programs as well as increase enrollment in their education programs). Sure, this was by design, but it was still stressful! When working on a project like this in my everyday life (professional or personal), I’m someone who likes to throw out whatever ideas may come into my head, knowing full well that some of them are not going to necessarily be good ideas, but I would rather get them out there for discussion instead of internally debating for too long whether or not they are good or bad. With this in mind, I’m never personally insulted when someone shoots down one of my ideas if after discussion it’s agreed upon that it’s not a strong one; a brainstorming approach to things means that not every idea you come up with during the process is going to be a good one. However, it’s often some of the ideas you just blurt out because it pops into your head that wind up being something no one else had thought of and can then lead to fruitful discussion. So during this group work the first idea I offered wasn’t a particularly strong one. Probably by the time I was finishing up the final few words of my thought, I realized it had missed the mark of the problem at hand. To their credit, my teammates respectfully listened before we quickly went through some of the stronger ideas that were offered up. Suddenly, I found myself feeling that I wasn’t turning out to be a very valuable member of my team as it appeared that every other individual seemed to have grasped the relevant issues and “big picture” of the problem much quicker than I was able to. If this project was to take place over 60 minutes, I knew I’d be able to be more helpful than I was going to be in 10 minutes. During moments of inferiority such as this, it may be tempting to shut down a bit and just let the others take the lead, but instead it’s crucial that you focus on listening to the contributions of your other teammates and realize that even the weakest member of a team has a responsibility to remain engaged and active in the task at hand. I also realized it was important to not “give up” in moments and situations like this; just because your first idea was not a strong one, you should not be afraid to remain actively engaged and offer up different ideas and suggestions. No one ever knows where the next brilliant suggestion may come from. It may come from you. You just have to keep trying and not give up.
During the application process for the Ed.D. program, I knew that group work was going to be a huge component towards earning the degree. I think even the most extroverted person will come in with some reservations about this — relying on others for the work you are going to submit to receive a grade is a scary thought no matter what your personality type is. As an introvert, it’s understandable that I may wind up having an even greater amount of reservations than many of my fellow students in the program. However, I’m a big believer in challenging myself and trying to remain positive and optimistic at all times. Even with the anxieties that came with feeling inferior within my own group, my first experience with group work in this program was a positive one because it reinforced one of the sentiments a faculty member had shared that day: “Greater emotional intelligence leads to success in online learning.” I know I’m not always going to be the most knowledgeable person in a group and have all the answers to every problem, but I do know how to manage my emotions in situations like this and adapt to new challenges. It was my first day in a new environment; I was going to have to learn to navigate through it. It was my first day meeting a lot of new people all pursuing the same ultimate goal; I was going to have to learn how to interact with different personalities within this type of setting. It was my first day of school of an intense 100% online three year doctoral program; I was going to have to manage my emotions and adapt to whatever lies ahead. I headed back to Fredericksburg that afternoon feeling energized and ready to take on all of these challenges.
Teamwork Alchemy – Finding the Right Formula – June 5, 2019
“The most important single ingredient in the formula of success is knowing how to get along with people.” – Theodore Roosevelt
In order to identify the needs of current student veterans/service members as well as prospective ones, the University of Mary Washington (UMW) created a Veterans Affairs Committee (VAC) in 2014. I was appointed as one of the members of the VAC because I serve as one of four Designated Certifying Officials at UMW. In this capacity, I assist student veterans, service members and dependents utilize their veteran benefits to pay their tuition and fees. Although the committee has accomplished quite a bit since its inception, one area that we struggled with early on was deciding upon how to provide Green Zone training for staff and faculty.
Since Virginia is one of the top five states with the most active duty and reserve members of the military, and UMW is located just 25 miles from Quantico and 50 miles from Washington, D.C., we definitely would benefit from providing awareness training for staff and faculty about the issues that veterans and service members face when they transition from military life to college life. Yet during the first two years of the committee’s existence, we could never reach a conclusion on what type of training to provide and whether or not it should be mandatory. While I along with a few other members pushed for training to be mandatory, the majority felt that there was already a fatigue setting in at UMW over the existing amount of mandatory training (IT Security, Identity Theft, Sexual Harassment, Title IX, etc.) that employees had to complete on an annual basis. During these first two years on the committee, I found myself growing more and more frustrated that the group seemed unable to make a final decision on this topic.
I approached this issue from a unique perspective as I was raised on Long Island where the military population is considerable smaller than it is in Virginia. It wasn’t until I moved to Virginia in 2009 that I realized how many veterans and service members I would interact with on a regular basis. Within 12 months of beginning my position as Senior Associate Registrar at UMW, I was assigned the task of supervising one of our Designated Certifying Officials and becoming one myself. Since I had very little experience working with active duty service members or veterans in a higher education setting, I quickly began to attend webinars and conferences to further educate myself on the challenges they face when transitioning to student life. As such, I personally realized how important Green Zone training is for staff and faculty.
Finally in the fall of 2016, the Chair of the VAC discovered that the office of Military Student Services at VCU offered an effective form of Green Zone Training. They began sharing it with other schools and encouraging them to personalize and adapt it accordingly for their institutions. Our Chair charged the group with forming a subcommittee to discuss if it would be effective at UMW. That was the first task of the subcommittee. If the subcommittee agreed to utilize it, the second task would be to personalize it for UMW and the third task—perhaps the most challenging one—would be to decide how to properly promote it in order to reach the widest cross-section of staff and faculty. Even though I was still frustrated that we couldn’t get buy in from the committee to make Green Zone training mandatory, I volunteered to Chair the subcommittee in hopes of making some type of impact on campus to raise awareness of the challenges that student veterans face and how to best serve their needs.
In addition to me, the committee consisted of five other members:
- Andie, Staff Member, Disability Resources
- Susan, Director, Disability Resources
- Chris, Academic Advising
- Jennifer, Residence Life
- Cindy, Counseling Services
The advantage of a subcommittee is that in most cases the members are already familiar with one another from working together within the main committee. In retrospect, my reported Myers-Briggs personality type of INFJ (Introversion, Intuition, Feeling, and Judging) makes a lot of sense in how I approached my role as Chair. I originally became passionate about Green Zone training because I was reflecting on my own experience as someone who knew very little about veterans and service members but then suddenly had to quickly learn about them in order to perform my new duties as a Designated Certifying Official. More than his however was that I also wanted to educate myself in this area because it was the right thing to do from a humanistic standpoint. Considering the tremendous sacrifices they make for our country, service members and veterans deserve to receive the necessary support from staff and faculty when seeking to further their education. This illustrates my tendency to try to see the big picture of things—offering Green Zone training wasn’t just an attempt to check a box off of a list of things to do, it was simply the right thing to do (Intuition). Introversion and Intuition is how I became interested in chairing the subcommittee; Feeling and Judging was how I went about working with the other team members to reach our goals. Each of us had volunteered to join the subcommittee because we were all passionate and invested in offering Green Zone training at UMW. Therefore, I wanted all of us to have an equal say in deciding if this was the way to go, how to personalize the training, and how to properly promote it (Feeling). I also felt that since this idea had been percolating for several years now, we should work to move quickly to deliver some type of tangible result (Judging).
Chris was the only member of the subcommittee that I had worked with outside of the VAC so I was confident that he and I would work well together. I think the only differences between his MBTI results and mine would be Thinking vs. Feeling as he tends to base his decisions more on logic than personal and social values. This worked well within the confines of our group because his viewpoint was invaluable when it related to what was the most reasonable way to offer the training. I think he gravitated towards Thinking due to his near 20 years’ experience at UMW–he knew the atmosphere and culture at UMW better than any of the other team members and therefore his personal perspective in this area was very important.
Andie and Susan both also seemed to lean towards Introversion, Feeling and Judging like myself, but differed in favoring Sensing vs. Intuition. Working in the Office of Disability and Resources, they had expressed in the past the ability to take in what is real and tangible (seen and unseen) when determining what accommodations students with disabilities may need to succeed. They would be able to take this same sensibility and apply it as we developed Green Zone training which focused on another specific sub-population of our student body.
One might think staff in Res Life may tend to be extroverted, but Jennifer definitely shared the Introversion tendencies with the other subcommittee members. In addition to working in Res Life, she was also a graduate student at UMW and the youngest person in our group. I think because of this, she possessed a Perceiving personality type vs. a Judging one; she wanted to obtain more information before offering any type of final opinion on something, perhaps because she had been at UMW the shortest amount of time among everyone in the group and needed to be extra sure of issues before offering her thoughts. It was good to have her on the group to make sure we weren’t moving too fast towards our goal.
As a veteran herself, Cindy was the only member of the group that had previously served in the military. She was also a counselor in our health center and I would categorize her as INFP (Introversion, Intuition, Feeling and Perceiving). Her calm, quiet demeanor indicated that she leaned towards being introverted, and her counseling background indicated that she had to look for patterns in behavior and consider personal and social values. This role also meant that she had to obtain more information before coming to a final conclusion on an issue. Like Chris, she served as someone on our team that was in the best position to make sure the subcommittee was on the right track with our ultimate decisions.
Reflecting on my MBTI results and my perceptions of the personality types of the other team members, it’s easy to see why we worked so well together as a group. As Chair, I coordinated our meetings with the intention that we were going to finally make expedition progress on this issue. There was definitely a need to have closure to this project (Judging). Everyone made their best effort to attend our monthly meetings that spanned over four months. If someone did have to miss a meeting, they let me know in advance (Feeling). We seemed to be on the page from the start, deciding that we wanted to use the VCU Green Zone training template and adapt it accordingly for UMW. Adapting it was fairly straightforward—30 minutes on providing background on what Green Zone training is, 30 minutes presenting a panel of current UMW student veterans discussing their transition from service to school with time for a Q&A session, and 30 minutes where Cindy could provide staff and faculty with specific things to be aware of and respectful of when dealing with student veterans and service members. We also all agreed on how to promote the training so that we’d be able to reach the greatest amount of people since it was voluntarily. During the course of each semester, Lunch & Learn sessions were routinely offered at our main dining hall so we decided this would be the best way to offer the training. Individuals could grab lunch and then meet us in an meeting space for the training. Leading up to the event, we promoted the event in our weekly staff/faculty electronic newsletter as well as on our information screens across campus.
Four months after our first meeting, we held the training to a group of over 40 staff and faculty members. Feedback obtained from those that attended was almost entirely positive. Truth be told, the credit for this goes to the excellent training template that VCU provided, as well as an engaging panel of student veterans and Cindy’s expertise in veteran issues and counseling services. Examining the work of our subcommittee two years later and taking the MBTI preferences of each team member into consideration, it’s no wonder that we were able to successfully put everything together in a relatively short period of time. It would be interesting to see if we would have had the same success if one or more of the team members had for example expressed more of an ESTJ (Extroversion, Sensing, Thinking, and Perceiving) personality type. Since all of our team members had similar personality traits, we rarely had any major conflicts during the process. Would conflicts have hindered our success on this project or would we have perhaps benefited more from having some different personalities involved? Maybe that would have made our training opportunity that we provided even more successful. It’s a very interesting scenario to consider and one that I will reflect on moving forward working in different team settings with the Myers-Briggs personality types in mind.
The People Please: When Good Intentions Lead to Dysfunction – June 20, 2019
My name is Kevin Caffrey and I am a “people-pleaser.” Ah, that feels better. Admitting my problem will hopefully be the first step in learning how to openly embrace conflict. In The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable (2002), Patrick Lencioni defines the list to be inattention to results, avoidance of accountability, lack of commitment, fear of conflict and absence of trust. While reading the book and learning about each dysfunction, I personally identified most with fear of conflict. I spent time reflecting on team experiences that I have been a part of over the years and it made me realize that even though my intentions at the time may have been good, I was often part of the problem because I was focused too much on things going “smoothly.” I don’t even think I necessarily have a fear of conflict; rather, I think I have always associated conflict as a negative aspect of professional situations so I would make an effort to avoid it whenever possible. What I’ve realized is that this can lead to a wide range of negative consequences including failing to hold people accountable and then in turn developing and harboring resentment towards these individuals. It can also ultimately lead to preventing a team from reaching its full potential.
I should take a moment to acknowledge that over the years I have become better at handling conflict when it arises, but I still find myself at times trying hard to avoid it in situations when it might actually be necessary. It is unusual because like many people, I recognize that very few consequential events occur in life in the absence of some type of conflict, yet I still find myself avoiding conflicts with other people when I can. As Kathryn explains to her team in The Five Dysfunctions (2002): “I don’t think anyone ever gets completely used to conflict. If it’s not a little uncomfortable, then it’s not real. The key is to keep doing it anyway” (p. 175). While I may be better now at dealing with conflict than I was twenty years ago when I was 23, the next step I need to take is to realize that my development as a person is only going to continue if I embrace conflict and recognize when it may be needed. I believe that within the Green Zone training subcommittee that I discussed in my last blog (Teamwork Alchemy: Finding the Right Formula), our lack of any significant conflicts may have caused our results to not be as successful as they could have been. One reason our team may have had very little conflict is because every individual shared similar Myers-Briggs personality types. Another reason was because we had already spent several years discussing the issue within our larger Veterans Affairs Committee (VAC). Personally, I was getting frustrated with how long it had dragged on and and was therefore primarily focused on achieving any type of tangible result; I believe other members of the subcommittee felt similarly. Though it may have seemed like the ideal team experience at the time (a group of like-minded, committed individuals ready to move quickly to create an important initiative), in hindsight I realize that I should have taken a different approach as Chair of the subcommittee.
To begin with, I should have suggested that we solicit for the subcommittee a member or two from outside of the VAC or someone from that group who was not as passionate about Green Zone training as the rest of us. Either prospect would have likely provided us with an alternate viewpoint when planning the training. Since this training had been on our minds for several years, we were trying to move as expeditiously as possible; we had already dealt with conflict within the VAC for several years over how to offer this training on campus and the formation of this subcommittee was our chance to move forward without conflicts getting in the way. Yet, that is ultimately what undermined the full potential of the project; we weren’t questioning the decision-making process enough. Were we adopting too much of VCU’s green zone training template? Were we giving the student veteran panel enough time to discuss their experiences? Were we neglecting to ask representatives from other areas on campus that had a high level of interaction with service members and veterans such as the Office of Admissions or the Office of Student Accounts to be a part of the subcommittee? While we definitely took time to discuss creating the training, I do not think we took the steps needed to refine the training to be more successful than our original vision. We started out with a solid idea of how to provide Green Zone training on campus, but without any type of significant conflict between members, we were unable to turn that solid idea into an exceptional one.
Perhaps absence of conflict is the slightly less dysfunctional brother of fear of conflict. In Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading (2002), Heifetz and Linksy explain how leaders need to learn how to “orchestrate the conflict” by constructively working with the differences that may arise in a group setting (pp. 101-102). In the absence of conflict, team members should consider if their consensus is a true reflection of agreement with one another or whether it is just the result of avoiding conflict altogether. A leader’s ability to personally model appropriate conflict behavior is essential (Lencioni, 2002, p. 206). I believe this is the area where I failed in my role as Chair of the subcommittee. Even though there can certainly be times where a conflict-free work environment can yield excellent results, I now realize that leaders as well as the individual members of a team have to be cognizant when there is an absence of conflict and question if that is helping or hindering the process. As Kathryn said, “If it’s not a little uncomfortable, then it’s not real (Lencioni, 2002, p. 175). Conversely, if it’s too comfortable, is it real at all?
In my experience, I’ve found that people usually enjoy working on a team where things are operating relatively conflict-free—individuals communicate openly and acknowledge the same goals, each member commits to their share of the work, everyone trusts one another and is vulnerable enough to admit when they do not know something, and hence consensus tends to comes easily. While an environment such as this may be capable of producing excellent results, too much comfort may cause the team members to not engage critically in the decision making process. As Kathryn states: “Consensus is horrible…if everybody agrees on something and consensus comes about quickly and naturally, well that’s terrific. But that isn’t how it usually works, and so consensus becomes an attempt to please everyone.” (Lencioni, 2002, p. 95). As I’ve acknowledged, I’m guilty of being a “people-pleaser.” Admitting my problem is the first step. The Five Dysfunctions of a Team has provided me with the insight I need to take the next one.
References
Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Committee, We Have a Problem: Operating Without A Mission – July 3, 2019
Whether it has been as a team member in a group project in college, as a volunteer in community-based organizations, or as a member of a professional committee at work, I have participated in many different team experiences over the past 25 years. Yet when I reflect on these experiences, I cannot recall the word “mission” being used that often. Sometimes within groups we focus on designing a mission statement for another project, but discussions on creating a mission statement on how to effectively operate as a team do not seem to take place that often in my experience. Kahn (2009) explains that teams require members to complete certain tasks, the first of which is figuring out why the team exists (p. 12). I think due to the nature of how groups and committees are often created, this aspect can either easily be overlooked or simply assumed to be predetermined by the organizer or Chair. Describing the purpose of a team in an initial email to its members or providing a list to each member of things that need to be accomplished may appear on the surface to be a mission statement, but when a group’s mission is not determined collectively by the individual members of the group, I have found that the overall success of the team may prove to be limited.
When I chaired the Green Zone training subcommittee at UMW in 2017, I believed at the time that we could just dive right into the work because we all knew (or thought we knew) what the mission was–develop and organize a Green Zone training event on campus. In retrospect, however, I realize that because we were primarily focused on the end result, we did not fully consider other outcomes we may have wished to accomplish, namely how we wanted to learn and develop as a team as well as individuals. Had we given every member the opportunity to discuss their expectations of the experience during our first meeting, we may have been able to develop a more robust set of ideas rather than just the singular goal of providing the training. As I’ve outlined in my previous blogs on this team experience, I do believe that overall we worked effectively as a group. The main regret I have is that we didn’t allow ourselves to question the process enough. We were not overly curious about the process itself because the idea had been gestating for quite some time. A basic human challenge to overcome is to remind ourselves to be curious even when we think we already know something (Edmondson, 2017). Our group thought we knew what we needed to do and therefore did not spend much time thinking beyond simply developing and providing the training. Creating and adopting a team mission statement at the outset may have prevented this.
Kahn (2009) discusses that teams can exist to perform well, to learn how to enjoyably work with others, and to assist with personal development and group; commonly, these purposes are thought to be mutually exclusive but they are not (p. 44). Evaluated purely on the basis of the end result, we performed well as a team; our Green Zone training on campus was well attended and garnered mostly positive feedback. Additionally, every member showed accountability and got along well with one another which contributed to the positive experience we had throughout the process. Mission accomplished—or so we thought. Two years later, I find myself wondering how much we actually learned throughout the process. I fear we may have just been working towards the end result and failed to consider how we ourselves wanted to develop as leaders and advocates for veteran awareness on campus. Had we spent our first meeting together developing a mission that would have incorporated more elements than just the end result, I believe we would have not only had a better chance of creating a more comprehensive training event but also a better chance of developing as stronger advocates for the cause. We were focused on the task at hand more so than our own professional development. After the training was provided, we made the mistake of not formally reconvening as a group to discuss the overall process or the results. You must review successes and failures, assess them systematically, and record the lessons in ways that are open and accessible (Kahn, 2009, p. 15). Based on the end result, we considered our experience successful. Yet without having developed a mission statement that focused on more than just the end result, we likely failed to reach our full potential to learn from the experience on an individual level as well as a group level.
One of the primary goals I had when I began the Ed.D. in Leadership program at VCU was to be able to put into practice the theories and concepts that our cohort would study. Kahn’s recommendation of collectively creating and adopting a mission statement at the outset of team experiences has truly been an eye opener for me. I have learned that it is what lies below the surface—each individual’s thoughts, opinions, experiences, and goals–that that can lead to creating an effective mission statement to determine the true purpose of a team and to ensure that the team will remain on track to accomplish its goals. In the past, my concept of team success has been about the end result, hoping throughout the process to also get along with the other team members and perhaps grow professionally as well. Having read Kahn’s theories, I realize that there is no reason that these three things need to be mutually exclusive if a team dedicates itself at the outset to forming a mission statement.
References
Edmondson, A. (2017, October). Amy Edmondson: How to turn a group of strangers into a team [Video file]. https://www.ted.com/talks/amy_edmondson_how_to_turn_a_group_of_strangers_into_a_team?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
Kahn, W. (2009). The student’s guide to successful project teams. New York: Routledge.
TKI Results: How Did We Get Here – July 15, 2019
A running narrative throughout my blogs these past two months has been the fact that even though my team got along very well with one another and accomplished our overall goal, our lack of productive conflict prevented us from reaching our full potential. I have attributed this to two main reasons: we were operating without a mission and we all had similar Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality types that prevented us from engaging in productive conflict. In light of the overall absence of conflict within our team, I can use my recent Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) results to analyze why I may have not taken a more proactive role in shaking things up a bit. I can also use these results to make inferences as to why the other members of my team did not seek to go beyond simply trying to accomplish the end result.
Similarly to how I felt when I received my MBTI results, I was not surprised by my TKI results. I earned very high percentile scores on the accommodating and collaborating modes (87% and 74% respectively), a very low percentile score (10%) on the competing mode, and a medium range (41% – 49%) of scores on the avoiding and compromising modes. Reflecting on the professional styles of my fellow team members, I imagine that nearly all of them would have had similar results to mine. Since it would be challenging to discuss our behavior in conflict situations when we did not engage in any substantial conflict during our time together, I can instead focus on a deeper question — is there a reason why we would all score similarly on the TKI? We were six individuals from five different departments at UMW that fell under the umbrella of “student services,” but were responsible for substantially different services from one another. Could there be an overarching reason as to why we would all have similar TKI results?
Influences from our personal lives have an effect on how we conduct ourselves during conflicts at work, so do the actual positions we hold at work. The one element of our positions that each of us had in common aside from providing services for students was that all but one of us can be considered middle management (the outlier, Jennifer from Residence Life, was a graduate student as well as an employee). As defined by Cooper and Boice-Pardee (2011), middle managers are defined as individuals who hold positions between front-line professionals and senior leaders (p. 36). Hence, middle managers at institutions of higher learning often find most of their time spent attending meetings and serving on committees and attempting to resolve student, staff, and faculty issues on a daily basis. Additionally, I have found in my experience that middle managers try to provide information to others in the most efficient and expeditious way possible—partly because we are focused on a “customer service” approach to internal and external constituents and partly because we have to get things done quickly because we have a meeting to get to at 3!
According to my TKI summary (Kimberly Bridges, Ed.L.D., personal communication, July 13, 2019), accommodators “help coworkers meet their concerns for the sake of the coworker and to help build cohesiveness and goodwill.” In my opinion, that could be a definition of middle management–you’re trying to accommodate those that you work for and work with for the “cohesiveness and goodwill” of the entire organization. But as middle managers, we also recognize the value in collaborating with others when “concerns of both parties are too important to be compromised” (TKI, 2007). Our subcommittee on Green Zone training was utilizing the accommodation mode heavily because we operate as such on a regular basis in our everyday roles at UMW. We also all knew each other prior to forming the subcommittee and therefore were interested in “preserving harmony and avoiding disruption” among the group. Yet, I believe every other individual on the subcommittee would also score high on the collaborating mode like I did. We all knew how important it was to offer Green Zone training on campus and how long it had taken to finally get close to reaching this goal. While I’ve pointed out previously that we did not engage in much conflict during our time together, we did utilize several of the practical suggestions of this mode such as conferring with the Chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee (VAC) for his insight and consensus, and we also made it a point to include the portion of the training where student veterans provided their insights into transitioning from military life to student life. Providing “insights from people with different perspectives on a problem” is a key trait of the collaborating mode (TKI, 2007).
Since I’m describing myself and other members of the subcommittee as middle managers, it’s somewhat humorous to me that I scored a 49% on the avoiding mode. I suppose when you’re interacting with a wide array of different people from different departments, you learn to develop a keen sense as to when to avoid an issue and when to take one on. At nearly the exact midpoint, it does often feel like a toss of the coin when I determine if I’m going to avoid a conflict or engage in one. How important is it to me? What’s the risk/reward scenario? Will avoiding it likely cause more issues in the future? While our team did not create any productive conflict, we also did not go out of our way to avoid any conflicts. We also did not operate in a compromising mode because we did go through the effort of monthly meetings and consistent communication and coordination to reach our goals. Lastly, our project did not call for operating in a competing mode because we had all been empowered by the Chair of the VAC to develop and coordinate this training. Since Green Zone training was for the good of the university community, there was little reason for any of us to operate in a “power-oriented mode.” We may have failed as a team in some areas, but I think our similar TKI results actually enabled us to operate effectively overall.
As my first term in the Ed.D. Leadership program winds down, this final blog on my Green Zone subcommittee has tied together a lot of different things that I’ve leaned thus far. Our subcommittee consisted of individuals with very similar MBTI and TKI results which enabled us to positively engage with one another and accomplish our goals. What we lacked was the most important of Kahn’s (2009) tasks of successful team development—developing a team mission at the outset of why we existed and what we wanted to accomplish. Without that guided direction, we did not reach our full potential as a team. Reflecting on and analyzing the different TKI conflict-handling modes makes me realize that while our similar MBTI results may have prevented us from developing productive conflict and reaching our full potential, our similar TKI results were likely the reason we were able to accomplish our main goal of offering the training and maintaining a healthy and professional relationship with one another at the same time. Differences in personality types may be helpful within the confines of a team to generate more diverse conversation and ideas, but differences in conflict-handling behaviors could present a wide array of different challenges. I didn’t experience these challenges within the confines of our Green Zone subcommittee, but at least now I feel better prepared for the next team scenario that may present them.
References
Cooper, M., & Boice-Pardee, H. (2011). Managing conflict from the middle. New Directions for Student Services. 136, 35-42. http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=a50d834c-99a6-4b41-bf3ec60d80bff0ae%40sessionmgr4007&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=527648175&db=eft
Kahn, W. (2009). The student’s guide to successful project teams. New York: Routledge.
Thomas, K.E., & Kilmann, R.H. (2007). Thomas – Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument Profile and Report [Measurement Instrument]. https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en-US
Book Review: Bolman & Deal – Reframing Organizations – July 26, 2019
As I enter the homestretch of my first term of the Ed.D. Leadership program, it was refreshing to take a break from working on my two final papers and engage in a roundtable discussion on Bolman and Deal’s Reframing Organizations (2017) with Dr. Ferguson and several of my classmates. While we critiqued certain parts of the text, the overall consensus was that the book made us reflect on concepts we were only somewhat familiar with prior to beginning the program. The majority of our discussion revolved around how each of us operated before reading Bolman and Deal, and how we plan to operate in the future based on what we have learned about the four frames of leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
While we may not have been familiar with the specific terminology of the four frames prior to reading the book, once we began reading the text, we began to recognize the frames that we each gravitate towards. For some, the results of the Bolman and Deal Leadership Orientation Self-Assessment (LOSA; 2017) confirmed what they already assumed about their leadership styles; others, however, were taken by surprise by their results. In facilitating our discussion, Dr. Ferguson echoed the main theme I took away from the text—the goal is to learn how to effectively implement all four frames on a regular basis in our everyday professional lives. Like Rosa mentioned during our discussion, I feel that I have found myself considering how to utilize the four frames during interactions outside of work as well.
Several students stressed that learning how to utilize all four frames will take time. The concepts contained within certain frames are sometimes approached with preconceptions (“Oh, telling stories and anecdotes isn’t leadership!” “I’m not into politicking—I can’t be political.”). Bolman and Deal provided recommendations on how to apply their concepts to everyday practice, but we acknowledged that it is challenging to move out of one’s comfort zone and engage in behaviors that are not always instinctual. As Yeimarie pointed out, doing so is going to take a fair amount of practice. Like the text, our roundtable discussion made me realize that Bolman and Deal’s four frames should be viewed as tools in our arsenal that we have at our disposal to use depending on the given situation. It’s going to take time to learn which tools we need to use in different situations, and it’s going to take practice to become proficient in using them. That’s the task (and the challenge) that we face moving forward.
Addressing some of the limitations of the text, we discussed the importance of critical reflection in our readings as well as in our papers. As professionals in our fields as well as doctoral students, critical reflection is essential for our development as leaders as well as scholars. One last thing I plan to do based on our discussion is to retake the LOSA in several years to see if any of my preferences towards the four frames of leadership change over time. I’m curious to discover how my leadership behaviors may change over the next few years in the program.
References
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations: Leadership orientations self-assessment. https://fs25.formsite.com/josseybass/form29/index.html
Academic Writing Year One: Chasing Perfection, Accepting Progress – September 19, 2019
Chasing perfection is the biggest challenge I face during the academic writing progress. I do not mean perfection in the sense of writing the greatest, most groundbreaking, most thought provoking piece of academic writing that has ever existed, but rather, perfection in the sense of determining if my grammar is correct, if I am utilizing my sources effectively, and if my paper is flowing in the best possible manner. The challenge of trying to write a truly great paper does exist, but I am realistic enough to realize that I have a long way to go in that regard. Instead, I find myself focusing too much on making sure every sentence, every paragraph, and every section of the paper is “perfect.” I often struggle with knowing when something I’ve written is as good as it can be. As an English major, I love the editing process, but it often leads me to over analyzing things. By spending too much time on this process, I often begin to second guess myself and lose perspective on what I was originally trying to accomplish with the paper. This is where the need for self-reflection comes in and I have to acknowledge to myself that at this point in my life and in my doctoral studies, this is the best level of academic writing that I have to offer.
During group work for our classes this past summer, my fellow classmate Mike shared great advice that a friend had given to him that I think about quite often: “better is the enemy of done.” I also think about the following simple phrase I read online recently: “progress, not perfection.” It’s clear to me that my academic writing at this point in my life is far from perfect so I believe that a realistic goal to set for myself is to be able to appreciate the progress that I make with each new paper that I write. The positive news is that through this writing exercise, I’ve come to realize how I can use one of my strengths to tackle this “growing edge” (Singh & Lukkarila, 2017) of over analyzing my work.
I find my greatest strength with regard to academic writing is my ability to design practical schedules with realistic deadlines for my assignments. In a very detailed manner, I plan out the time I will need to set aside for what Singh and Lukkarila (2017) refer to as the pre-writing and while-writing phases of academic writing. I also make a point to leave enough time for the post-writing phase, but I tend to leave this portion open ended by simply continuing to review and edit right up until the 24 hours before the paper is due. I believe in the “writing is rewriting” theory and how important the editing process is, but I believe that I need to begin to establish deadlines as to when I need to put the pencil down so to speak and realize that I have dedicated as much time as I can to making the paper “perfect.” Therefore, I am going to start establishing specific time periods and deadlines for the post-writing phase just as I do with the pre-writing and while-writing phases. By organizing a way to keep my editing process on track, I think this may improve my focus and prevent over analysis and self-doubt from hindering my progress.
A few weeks ago I mentioned that I was enrolled in the Ed.D. in Leadership program to a faculty member at my institution. We began discussing the program and the academic writing process in general. Similar to the aforementioned advice, she told me that sometimes one has to realize when something is “good enough.” It may be noble to attempt to chase perfection, but perhaps it’s more practical to accept progress. My question for the class is how do you determine when you are truly done with your academic writing assignment? Is there a specific method that you use or is it more of a gut feeling that you have that tells you it is as good as you’re going to be able to do?
References
Singh, A.A., & Lukkarila, L. (2017). Successful academic writing: A complete guide for social and behavioral scientists [Kindle Fire version]. Amazon.
How Character Shapes Ethical Leadership – February 4, 2020
I would imagine that most people consider themselves to be ethical. I also believe that most individuals that behave unethically on a regular basis are probably cognizant on some level that they are not ethical. But does anyone consider themselves to be a little ethical? Is that a thing? It seems difficult to fathom how anyone could categorize themselves in this fashion. Overall, I believe most people either consider themselves ethical or unethical.
Therefore, those that consider themselves to be ethical leaders may simply believe that the choices and decisions they make, whether right or wrong, at the very least will always be ethical. However, after reading the first few chapters of Craig Johnson’s Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership (2018), I now realize that unless we face that fact that even well-intentioned leaders can act unethically, we are susceptible to behaving in ways that may betray our personal code of ethics and true character. The late basketball coach John Wooden once said: “The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching” (as cited in Pavlo, 2012). I believe character is the main motivator behind ethical leadership, where our choices, actions, and behaviors must be representative of our own values regardless of what the result or consequence may be. When serving as a leader, we sometimes face the challenge of making decisions based not only on policy and procedure, but also on what others might expect us to do. These challenges may appear unethical, but we feel the pressure of someone “watching” to see if we proceed with a certain action. But what would we do if no one was watching and our decisions would be ones that are in accordance with our true character? Would we have the courage to take action regardless of the consequences? Johnson (2018) pointed out that leaders can find a variety of ways to rationalize unethical actions. Rationalizing unethical actions will likely have long term effects not only on the organization one works for but also on an individual’s sense of self and well-being.
One statement of Johnson’s that I have reflected on most is that it only takes a few destructive behaviors to overcome a leader’s positive qualities (2008, p. 6). Johnson illustrated that simply possessing a strong moral identity and strong set of values will not ensure ethical leadership; values have to be translated into action (2018, p. 95). The text contains many practical ways to develop habits that will help translate values and beliefs into ethical leadership. As leaders, we must acknowledge that even those who consider themselves to be ethical are not immune from making unethical decisions. Once we can accept this fact and reflect on all of our behaviors as leaders, we can refine and improve the ethical side of our leadership styles so that we do not find ourself in the position of betraying our true character.
References
Johnson, C.E. (2018). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow (6th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Pavlo, W. (2012, October 23). Character is what you do when everyone is watching. https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2012/10/23/character-is-what-you-do-when-everyone-is-watching/#3ccbf40efc6d
Book Review: The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University – April 20, 2020
Peter Lake’s The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University: The Rise of the Facilitator University (2013) explored how colleges and universities balance creating and maintaining safe learning environments with encouraging the individual accountability of students, faculty, staff, and other members of the campus community. Lake provided the different approaches that institutions of higher learning (IHLs) have taken over the past several decades towards student safety, from the insularity and in loco parentis era prior to the civil rights revolution of the 1960s up until the current movement which stresses shared responsibility. At the time of the writing of the book, Lake envisioned a model where students “choose for themselves” but the university “manages the parameters under which choices are made” (2013, p. 260). Throughout the text, Lake provided noteworthy and landmark court cases to trace the reasons and motivations behind the transitions that colleges and universities have gone through over the years with regard to student safety and accountability.
One of the aspects I enjoyed most about the book is the honest assessment of the confusing nature of rights and responsibilities in higher education. By taking the reader through each legal era of higher education thus far (in loco parentis era, civil rights era, bystander era, and duty era), and referencing the pivotal court cases that brought about change during each of these eras, I was able to clearly follow the reasons and rationales that brought about changes to how the law is applied in higher education. Lake did a particularly good job writing for those readers not very familiar with legal jargon so that it is fairly easy to understand the different cases and decisions that were made. Lake also effectively explained key concepts that I believe many people in higher education are familiar with, but may not be aware of the specific history and background. For example, when detailing the in loco parentis era of higher education, Lake explains that this era was more about having total control and authority over college students rather than acting as a parent in the current traditional sense of looking out for the well-being of children.
Lake also did a good job of using pop culture references to break up some of the monotony that may come with an abundance of legal cases and terminology. Frequent references to the authoritative Dean Wormer of a fictitious early 1960s college from the iconic film Animal House (1978), for example, was an effective way to illustrate to the reader just how much has changed in the relationship between administrators and students over the past half century. Additionally, by explaining how Yoda served as a “facilitator” to Luke Skywalker in The Empire Strikes Back (1980), Lake illustrated the middle path that the modern university must take to provide resources and training for students, but ultimately allow the student to take accountability and let their experiences shape their learning. In an inspired piece of commentary, Lake explained how in the prequels of the Star Wars saga, Yoda took an in loco parentis approach to training Luke’s father, Anakin Skywalker, who would eventually rebel and become the evil Darth Vader. The point being: if Yoda can make mistakes as an administrator and learn from them, we all can.
The other text assigned for EDLP 704: Frameworks for Decision-Making: Legal Perspectives, Kaplin and Lee’s The Law of Higher Education (2014), is dense with the traditional legal jargon and light on author commentary. Therefore, Rights and Responsibilities was a refreshing complement to gain a greater understanding of how the law has been in applied in IHLs throughout the past several decades. Lake’s combination of legal cases and historical trends mixed with humor and pop culture references made this an easy read, but not one that ever felt lacking in substance. This book is perfect for anyone with an interest in higher education, whether it be student, parent, administrator, or faculty member, that wants to know how the history of how the law has been applied to colleges and universities in order to understand where IHLs stand today from a legal perspective. Even though released almost a decade ago, the book’s support for a facilitator model, where administrators know how to adapt depending on the individual student (Lake, 2013, p. 264), still holds true today.
References
Kaplan, W.A. & Lee, B.A. (2014). The Law of Higher Education (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Kurtz, G., & Kershner, I. (1980). The Empire Strikes Back [Film]. Lucasfilm Ltd.
Lake, P.F. (2013). The rights and responsibilities of the modern university: The rise of the facilitator university (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
Simmons, M., Reitman, R., & Landis, J. (1978). Animal House [Film]. Universal Pictures.
Book Review: Delusions of Gender – April 24, 2020
Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender examines how some studies in brain activity over the past couple of centuries have been used to promote the idea that there are differences between the brains of men and women that affect emotions and behaviors. Providing many examples of how the results of this research are often not scientifically significant, Fine illustrates how questionable brain research has played a very large part in perpetuating the myth that women and men are “hardwired” differently and that is what accounts for perceived gender differences. Delusions of Gender aims to discuss how this form of neuroscience has essentially been used by scientists and researchers as an attempt to legitimize gender bias.
From a scientific point of view, Delusions of Gender goes into great detail to explain why these studies need to be questioned. Fine points out that there is actually a greater amount of scientific research that details how the brain differences between men and women are so minute, that it is more reasonable to assume inherent differences do not exist between the two sexes. Even though behavioral differences often observed in men and women are more easily explained by social context and stereotypes, many people latch on to this neuroscience as a way to attempt to rationally explain longstanding stereotypes such as women having a “need” to cook and clean, men not having the same physiological capability as women to be empathetic and nurturing, and women not being as adept as men in subjects such as science and math. Fine does an excellent job of showing how these stereotypes affect our educational, personal, and professional experiences, and how many people, even on an unconscious level, simply believe men and women are born to behave differently because of biological and physiological reasons.
Unfortunately, prior to reading this book, I probably considered some differences in men and women to be physiological as well. Moving forward, I need to keep this research in mind in my personal and professional life when gender differences are discussed. I have been in many situations both professionally and personally where men and women comment on how gender affects behavior. Now that I have some context on how unreliable research over the years has played a role in these beliefs, I feel that I am now more capable to address this subject matter. As a leader, it is always imperative to treat others equally; Delusions of Gender has definitely made me reconsider the origins of gender bias and how to approach the issue in the future.
The only criticism I have of the book is that even though it is from the last decade, it feels like it was written a lifetime ago. Over the past couple of decades, society has progressed in many ways to reduce gender stereotypes and biases such as the increase in stay-at-home dads, different family dynamics where two men or two women raise a family, and the emergence of the “gig economy” that provides many women more financial independence than is often found in traditional business organizations. These topics are rarely, if ever, mentioned in the book. Scanning the bibliography, I noticed that most of the sources are over 12 years old, with many dating back to the late 1990s. Therefore, while I enjoyed Delusions of Gender and would recommend it, I would suggest also reading Gender and Our Brains: How New Neuroscience Explodes the Myths of the Male and Female Minds by Gina Rippon, Professor of Cognitive Neuroimaging, a newer, recently released book that may provide a more contemporary view of the subject matter.
References
Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neuroscience create difference. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Rippon, G. (2019). Gender and our brains: How new neuroscience explodes the myths of the male and female minds. New York, NY: Penguin Random House.
Examining Equity in Higher Education – Spring 2020
2020-2021: Year Two
Transformational/Transactional Leadership and Adapting Organizational Change – July 14, 2020
The current organizational culture of my unit at UMW favors Clan Culture and Hierarchy Culture (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). However, in the midst of COVID-19 and the new set of demands placed on higher education administrators, I feel we need to move more towards the Adhocracy Culture and Market Culture to adapt some of our longstanding procedures and functions in order to serve students more effectively by trying to increase convenience and take social distancing measures into consideration. The same thing that I think we can leverage to accomplish this (our team-oriented, loyal, collaboration-heavy culture) however may also hinder our ability to adapt – we’ve been doing many of our functions in more or less the same manner for many years and it’s often hard to effectively move individuals out of their comfort zones.
One of the main takeaways from Part. 4 of Cameron and Quinn (2011) is that there is no standard “best” culture. An effective culture is going to have to align with the expectations and demands of the organization, and right now, the expectations and demands placed upon a registrar’s office have changed in many ways. One of the articles I found on organizational culture focused on the Denison Organizational Culture Model and how it relates to transformational leadership versus transactional leadership (Rahil & Dumitru, 2019).
This made me think of my own organization and how I believe transformational (inspiration, influence, empowerment) leadership is needed now more than transactional (incentives and rewards) leadership if we wish to move more towards a creative culture that can then find a way to market our improved student services to increase satisfaction and retention.
Rahil and Dumitru (2019) concluded that leaders have to adapt their styles in accordance with the organization’s goals, and that a combination of transformational leadership and transactional leadership is needed in different situations. Clearly, our office’s focus on policies, procedures, and student records has to incorporate elements of transactional leadership, but after this week’s readings/videos and completing my OCAI analysis paper, a culture shift for our unit is really going to depend on our ability to utilize transformational leadership.
The other noteworthy takeaway I had from this week’s work was Jerry Pico’s discussion on curiosity and exploration (2018). I think now is the time for higher education leaders to encourage risk-taking and increased curiosity and questioning. I have found though that in times of extreme stress, it can be hard to muster up curiosity and the emotional strength to take risks. It has been so busy the last few months with all of the new challenges that our office is facing—not to mention, the change to teleworking, announced furloughs, and restricted budget issues—that I don’t think the main leadership team in our office has expressed to our staff that we want to encourage and empower individuals in our office to feel comfortable thinking outside the box and offering new and innovating opinions on improving and adapting some of our functions, but I hope to be able to do this soon.
References
Cameron, K.S., & Quinn, R.E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. Jossey-Bass.
Pico, J. (2018, May 11). Creating a culture of change [LinkedIn Learning online course]. https://www.linkedin.com/learning/creating-a-culture-of-change/curiosity-is-key?u=76209018
Rahil, A., & Dumitru, S. (2019). The sustainable links of development between leadership and organizational cultures. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 8(2), 45-55.
The Group Covenant as Roadmap – September 11, 2020
A group project has all the elements of a journey: the team must make an initial set of plans before getting started, expect various unexpected challenges throughout, appreciate and savor the little accomplishments, and hopefully arrive safe and sound at the destination.
In one of our very first courses of the Ed.D. in Higher Education Leadership program, EDLP 700: Effective Learning Networks, our cohort learned about the importance of establishing a mission statement at the outset of working on a team project. Khan (2009) explained that one of the very first tasks a team must complete is to determine why it exists. Our Group Covenant assignment for EDLP 711: Evidence-Informed Perspectives on Practice I expands on this concept by not only allowing our team to develop a mission statement but also determine how we will work best with one another. After assembling our team and finalizing our problem of practice for our semester-long project, our group decided to schedule a standing weekly meeting to ensure that we stay on track with our progress. After that, our first official task was to create a Group Covenant to determine how we will work together as a team in a productive way that accounts for our different personality types as well as our different personal and professional expectations.
Prior to our team meeting to complete the Group Covenant, we worked individually on different parts of it such as entering our Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) scores. To be honest, I rarely think about these scores on a regular basis other than my broad acknowledgement that I am a fairly accommodating introvert. Yet, since this is the first time in the program that we will be working with the same group of individuals for the entire semester, it was important to review my results once again and review my team members’ scores as well. As I reviewed them, I took notice of the similarities and differences. Throughout this review, I wondered if it is possible at this point to determine any “red flags” as it relates to how our team may work together this semester. However, although the TKI may describe how we handle conflicts, and the MBTI may describe personality traits, these instruments cannot predict exactly how individuals will respond to and interact with others in a team setting. Our Group Covenant should be able to provide every team member with the basic information to determine how we may be able to leverage our similarities to successfully complete the project while also allowing us to be mindful or our different approaches to working together as a group. The specific aspect of the Group Covenant that I found most advantageous is the section where each member lists their “hot button” issues and preferences for assistance during a team project. It’s helpful to discuss these issues at the outset of working together so that each member can be aware of how their actions (or lack of action) may affect the other members of the group.
Every team needs to know why they exist and for what purpose. A semester-long project working with the same team members is certainly going to seem like a journey. A mission statement defines the destination of this journey, but a Group Covenant allows team members to determine the best route to take in order to get there.
References
Kahn, W. (2009). The student’s guide to successful project teams. New York: Routledge.
Root Cause Analysis of Leadership Changes Amidst COVID-19 – September 16, 2020
For the semester-long qualitative study, our group’s problem of practice is determining how leadership has changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Within this problem of practice, we are interested in changes in leadership decision-making, who is primarily responsible for making these decisions, and the amount of pressure being put on leaders by different stakeholders. Even though many organizations engage in table top emergency preparedness exercises, COVID-19 is an unprecedented event that has placed leaders in a position of having to decide on things without some of the key elements that normally lead to sound decision-making.
All of us realize that leadership has been under tremendous pressure during COVID-19, but our group meetings thus far have revolved around Root Cause Analysis (RCA) discussions to pinpoint what are the specific reasons that has caused leadership to change their way of making decisions and leading during a pandemic. In many ways, the manner in which leaders normally make decisions has been turned on its head amidst COVID-19. Some of the root causes we came up with as to why leadership has had to change/adapt over the past six months include:
- Absence of essential information (basic facts of how the virus works, availability of personal protective equipment and testing equipment, etc.)
- Loss of Autonomy in decision-making (new state regulations and CDC policies taking priority)
- Quick decisions needing to be made not allowing for the normal structure of shared governance in some situations
We tackled discussing our problem of practice with the heart of RCA as the focus: why is this problem happening? Since COVID-19 is a new virus, there is an absence of essential information about the virus that was especially true in the winter and spring of 2020 when cases first began to spread in the United States. In normal situations, leaders need to utilize available information in order to make decisions, but often in the early days and weeks of COVID-19, information on the virus was either unavailable or changing on a regular basis. While the establishment of state regulations and policies helped guide the decision-making process, it also took a certain amount of autonomy out of the decision-making process for leaders. Sadly, certain health recommendations have been politicized over the past several months. Depending on the state your organization resides in, leaders could be conflicted on if their decisions are right for their stakeholders based on their state’s recommendations. Further, because many quick decisions had to be made this past spring at institutions of higher learning involving campus closings, transitioning to online learning, residence housing accommodations, etc., some of the shared governance structures many schools normally adhere to had to be circumvented. While many stakeholders express patience and understanding towards leaders during these trying times, there are also stakeholders that express disappointment, frustration, and anger at the decisions that leaders have chosen to make during COVID-19.
I am excited to move forward in our study to determine what questions we will want to ask leaders of how they have handled all of the factors that has lead to this changing role of leadership amidst COVID-19. As a society, we are in a time of an extended health crisis the likes of which we have not seen in over 100 years. Leaders across all different organizations have been engaged in crisis leadership for over six months. In Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership, Johnson stated that stress and anxiety make it hard to manage during a crisis. From a holistic point of view, is leading during a crisis of such an extended nature tenable? I hope our study provides some valuable information to help answer this question.
References
Johnson, C.E. (2018). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow (6th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Perspectives on Writing: Pinker, Lamott & AOR Rockers – February 4, 2021
Steven Pinker (2014) argued that there are three reasons why one’s writing style matters: it is a way to effectively get a message across to the reader, it is a way to earn the trust of the reader through the care and precision displayed in the writing, and it is a way to add beauty to the world. While I believe writing can be strong if it covers just one or two of these reasons, I think writing at its best will cover all three. If writing fails at all three, it is hard to imagine it would be very effective. As I begin to finish up my second year of the Ed.D. program, my goal as a writer is to try to continue to develop my writing style to a point where it will regularly and naturally embody all three of Pinker’s reasons. The last of Pinker’s reasons–adding beauty to the world–may seem to be the outlier when it comes to academic writing since as doctoral students we have been trained and have learned to write from a scholarly mindset as opposed to say a poetic one. Yet if we can convey the purpose and passion of our research through precise language and interesting writing, our work will hopefully make a positive contribution to our community of practice, and ultimately bring something beautiful to our field and to the world in general.
I appreciated that Pinker (2014) pointed out that classic style manuals can come off as rigid and stuck in the past, often neglecting to acknowledge the natural evolution of language. Again, this seems to go against the grain of a lot of what we have learned in our program where the rules of APA loom large. However, perhaps this is the perect time to read Pinker because our cohort has now had almost two years of practical experience using APA and we are moving closer and closer to beginning our capstone projects. Through the use of four very different styles of modern prose, Pinker (2014) illustrated the different aspects of good writing such as fresh wording, concrete imagery, stark revelations, unusual descriptions of familiar things, and sometimes simply the feeling of the sounds of the words being used. The variety of these different passages serve as an example of why “good writers are avid readers” (Pinker, 2014, p. 11): the more we read and evaluate the choices that writers make across a spectrum of differnt styles, the more we can learn to put that same careful thought into our own writing.
In “Shitty First Drafts,” Lamott (2005) follows a lot of Pinker’s characteristics of good writing. First, she starts off strong and provokes curiosity (Pinker, 2014). By inserting an expletive into the very first sentence, she not only grabs the reader’s attention but she also puts herself on the same level as the reader with her colloquialism. “All good writers write them,” she comments about “shitty first drafts,” which puts the reader, who is likely very interested in their own writing ability, immediately at ease. Contrary to say a classic style manual, Lamott pulls back that curtain on writing at the very beginning of her essay by indicating that it is not easy. If it was easy, everyone could learn to be a great writer. Pinker (2014) also commented that good writing “can flip the way the world is perceived” (p. 14). Lamott certainly does this in her essay by tearing down the illusion of the successful writer calmly and effortlessly sitting at a beautiful oak desk tapping out one excellent sentence after another on their laptop while soft classical music plays in the background. Instead, she explained how hard the work actually is and how one must “trust the process” of not being terribly happy with first (or second) drafts, but cognizant of how writing is ultimately fixed and improved during the editing process.
A common expression amongst writers is that “writing is rewriting.” The rewiting or editing process is hard work. During an interview several years ago discussing the difficulty and daunting challenge of writing songs, rock musician Bog Seger recalled how Don Henley explained the stressful process as “blood on the page” (as cited in McCollum, 2012). Several years ago in the writing/recording area of my music room, I kept the “blood on the page” quote next to my desk as a reminder of how difficult the process can be when one cares about their work. Our writing is an extension of ourselves; the “blood” can be considered the part of us that we leave on the page. Further, while I don’t think many writers are pushing themselves to the point of breaking their skin open from writing, the “blood” metaphor also represents the physical toil and stress that can come with the process. I eventually replaced this quote in my writing/recording area with “trust the process.” Currently I have an index card that reads: “Work on it. Keep at it. No shortcuts to this.” As Lamott (2005) wrote: “Almost all good writing begins with terrible first drafts” (p. 96). Once a writer gets comfortable with this fact, but makes a decision to trust the process, the less daunting the process will hopefully become. What makes Lamott’s piece an example of good writing is that it can be traced back to Pinker’s three reasons as to why style matters: she effectively gets her message across, she earns the trust of the reader through the care and thought she put into the topic, and hopefully by inspiring future writers with her words, the piece ultimately stands a very high chance of adding beauty to the world.
References
Lamott, A. (2005). Shitty first drafts. In P. Eschholz et al. (Eds.) Language awareness: Readings for college writers (9th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.
McCollum, B. (2012, January 5). Bog seger reenergized for latest tour. The Daytona Beach News-Journal. https://www.news-journalonline.com/article/LK/20120105/News/605070110/DN
Pinker, S. (2014). The sense of style: The thinking person’s guide to writing in the 21st centure. Viking.
How Writing Supports Strong Leadership – February 15, 2021
This was an assignment for EDLP 716: Principles for Professional Writing II (Spring 2021) on evaluating speeches by New Zealand Prime Minister Ardern and former United States President Obama and how writing can support strong leadership.
–
At its heart, writing is about conveying a message. Whether jotting down directions on a post-it or writing a suspense novel, the author of both is trying to get their message across through the use of their words. Unlike some forms of prose writing and poetry where the message does not necessarily have to be overt, the prepared speeches of a leader should emulate the effective traits of strong leadership such as clarity and honesty. A leader’s words should also embody the spirit of teamwork and inspiration. Pinker (2014) stressed the importance of choosing words carefully when one has to pack a lot into a small space. A leader must keep this in mind when delivering an important message to their followers. President Obama is notorious for speaking in a very measured and deliberate manner. In a study on examining the leadership techniques that President Obama utilized in his speeches, Engbers and Fucilla (2012) found that he tended to use transforming leadership language by emphasizing rational persuasion to motivate others. A leader that believes in the importance of sustainable change will value the power of their words to not only inspire others but challenge them as well.
In his eulogy for Reverend Clementa Pinckney, President Obama (2015) displayed strong leadership characteristics to a congregation and nation in mourning over the 2015 Charleston church shooting. I think the strength in Obama’s speech is that he honored the life and legacy of Reverend Pinckney and the other eight individuals who were murdered that day, but also used the moment to frame the historical significance of African-American life and black churches in the United States. He also used the speech as an opportunity to ask those in attendance to reflect on issues such as race relations, social justice, and gun violence in the United States. These were a lot of topics to touch upon in a speech that lasted less than 40 minutes, so the economy of his words was very important. Although it was a moment of mourning, the hateful act of racially targeted gun violence was too important not to address in a significant fashion. I would like to think that those who have read, listened to, or watched the speech came away with a sense of who Reverend Pinckney was as a person, but also were inspired in the moment to reflect upon the larger issues in society that led to his murder. Throughout the speech, President Obama referred to “we” when addressing those in attendance (“For too long, we’ve been blind to the way past injustices continue to shape the present,” “For too long, we’ve been blind to the unique mayhem that gun violence inflicts upon this nation,” “Perhaps it causes us to examine what we’re doing to cause some of our children to hate,”). The repeated use of “we” in President Obama’s speech indicated to his followers that he has not absolved himself from the civic responsibility every individual has to examine these important issues and try to find solutions to improve them. A good leader strives to show accountability and lead by example. Through the simple repeated use of “we” in his eulogy, President Obama accomplished this quite powerfully.
Like President Obama, New Zealand Prime Minister Ardern also conveyed a sense of accountability and togetherness through her COVID-19 speeches to New Zealand in 2020. I admired the straight-forwardness of her message when she stated “We have to focus on one simple goal – to slow down COVID-19,” “Here’s how we will know what to do and when,” “Here are the things that we need from you,” (Ardern, 2020). These clear directives under normal circumstances are benchmarks of strong leadership; they are even more imperative in times of crises since emotions and fears tend to run extra high. Prime Minister Ardern, like President Obama, also repeatedly used the word “we” in her speeches to not only include herself in the responsibility of the actions that need to be taken, but also as a form of modeling positive behavior and team-building. She is also bluntly honest in her message: “Right now I cannot tell you when [the lockdown] will end.” Her messaging is a huge study in contrast with the messaging of former United States President Donald Trump who consistently blamed others for inadequacies in the country’s COVID-19 response, politicized the adherence of safety measures such as wearing masks and social distancing, and commented “I don’t take responsibility at all” (as cited in Oprysko, 2020) when asked about the testing failures of the United States in the early months of the pandemic.
The speeches from President Obama and Prime Minister Ardern that we read this week illustrate to me just how much words matter, especially in times of crisis. Compare, for example, the current COVID-19 situation between New Zealand and the United States and it shows how the words of a leader can either inspire others to work together to reach the same goal or create division and sow confusion to slow down progress. Considering the recent events of the insurrection at the Capitol building, we have seen the dark side of when the words of our leaders are cloaked in pessimism, dishonesty, anger, and violence. That day was a culmination of four years of the country’s top executive using his words in a fashion designed to divide rather than unite. Reflecting on everything from the events of Charlottesville in 2017 to the Walmart shooting in El Paso, New Mexico in 2019, I do not believe it was the first time that the words delivered in many of Trump’s speeches–prepared and ad-libbed–led to injury and death. As leaders we hold the power to guide and inspire our followers. Followers pay attention to our words just as they pay attention to our actions. Therefore, any individual in a position of power must acknowledge this responsibility and choose their words very carefully when leading whether they are in charge of a team, an organization, or a country.
References
Ardern, J. (2020). PM Address: Covid-19 Update. The Official Website of the New Zealand Government. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/pm-address-covid-19-update
Engbers, T., & Fucillia, L. (2012). Transforming leadership and the Obama presidency. Social Science Quarterly, 93(5), 1127-1145. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42864119
Obama, B. (2015). Remarks by the President in eulogy for the honorable Reverend Clementa Pinckney.The White House. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/26/remarks-president-eulogy-honorable-reverend-clementa-pinckney
Oprysko, C. (2020, March 13). ‘I don’t take responsibity at all’: Trump deflects blame for coronavirus testing fumble. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/13/trump-coronavirus-testing-128971
Pinker, S. (2014). The sense of style: The thinking person’s guide to writing in the 21st centure. Viking.
Arcs of Coherence – March 28, 2021
When I think of the word coherence, I think about communication and how important it is for any type of message one attempts to relay to another person to be clear and easy to understand. Even something as basic as providing directions to a driver has to be clear. “Turn in a little bit” is a lot less coherent of a message than “In .5 miles, make a right onto Lafayette Street.” The former message is unclear and illogical (Turn where? What does a little bit mean? What’s the name of the street I should be looking for?). The latter is reasoned and logical, providing the mileage, the direction, and the name of the road the driver needs to turn on to.
Pinker’s (2014) concept of arcs of coherence is no different when it comes to academic writing: how and why does one thing lead to another? “Strive to inform, not to dumbfound” (p. 149). If you tell me to “turn in a little bit,” I am dumbfounded. If you give me the approximate mileage, the direction, and the road I am supposed to be on, I am informed. Academic writing is more detailed than simple driving directions, but the same concepts apply: organize your thoughts clearly enough so that your reader understands the message you are trying to convey. Even complex driving directions from GoogleMaps have a general outline to keep the reader on track, so when a topic is important and complex, outlines help writers organize their thoughts and ideas before they head out on the road that leads to the final paper.
Several weeks ago when we began to read the exemplar reviews, we were told to focus on different sections and take note of how they were written. The very first paragraph in Pearman (2019) is a good example of arcs of coherence in academic writing:
“Contemporary knowledge about the challenges of urban life originates, in part, from the publication of William Julius Wilson’s (1987) book, the The Truly Disadvantaged.”
This first sentence introduced the topic of urban life challenges and connected it to a seminal work on the subject. The second and third sentences exist to explain to the reader what about Wilson’s work makes it important:
“Wilson argued that the socioeconomic decline of inner-city neighborhoods during the 1970s and 1980s was a consequence of postindustrialization in which the predominant mode of production moved away from manufacturing and toward the service sector, driving down demand for low-skilled labor in urban neighborhoods. The result of this secular trend, along with middle-class flight to the suburbs and discriminatory public policy and private practice in the housing and lending markets (Massey & Denton, 1993; Rugh, Albright, & Massey, 2015; Rugh & Massey, 2010; Shertzer, Twinam, & Walsh, 2016), was an outgrowth in the number of hypersegregated, high-poverty, central city neighborhoods.”
Although I think the first sentence may have benefitted from being split up into two sentences, Pearman effectively explained Wilson’s argument of how impoverished inner-city neighborhoods developed 50 years ago. He then concluded this first paragraph by transitioning to the present-day situation:
“By the late 1980s, concentrated urban poverty was a fixture in the U.S. residential landscape (Iceland & Hernandez, 2017; Jargowsky, 1997).”
As a transition sentence, this final one is effective because it served as a preface to what the subsequent literature review focused on: academic achievement in high-poverty neighborhoods. The second paragraph begins:
“In the decades that followed, an outburst of scholarship emerged that endeavored to test the hypothesis that living in a high-poverty neighborhood was detrimental to children’s academic achievement (Aaronson, 1997; Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, 1997; Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Sealand, 1993; Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Plotnick & Hoffman, 1995; Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002; Sampson, Sharkey, & Raudenbush, 2008).”
Elsewhere in Pearman’s article–from the Methods section to the Conclusion–he structured his paragraphs in a logical and orderly fashion to guide the reader appropriately. It’s kinda fun (heavy emphasis on kinda) to apply Pinker’s arcs of coherence to any paragraph of any piece of writing to see how it holds up. This exercise makes me think of the editing process–it is going to be uncommon for a first draft to have perfect coherence, but during the second, third, and forth rounds of edits, the writer must spend the time to make sure each paragraph is clear, has a point, and transitions logically to the next paragraph.
Like Pearman’s (2019) article, Ta-Nehisi Coates’ (2014) article on slavery and reparations also had a significant and complex historical background, one that many individuals are not familiar with. Therefore, he crafted his article in a way that takes the reader on a journey. The inclusion of a Bible verse before the article begins really emphasized to me how far back the issue of slavery goes. From there, he used one man’s story to illustrate how specific policies were put in place after slavery ended to continue to discriminate against Black people in a variety of different ways. In addition to transition sentences throughout the article (most notably detailing Clyde Ross’ life story and struggles), the first half of the article laid out a strong foundation of discrimination as it pertains to the housing market before transitioning to the second half which focused more on the need to have a serious discussion in America about reparations. For a lengthy article, Coates kept things coherent as well as interesting by mixing significant historical events and policies with personal storytelling.
Coherence is needed any time a message must be relayed, but this week’s readings made me reflect on the fact that the greater the importance of the topic, the greater care must be given to make sure the writing is coherent. We have been told in this program that academic writing is not about convincing the reader you are right about your assertations, but that you have provided a solid argument as to why your assertations should be taken seriously. Coherence is the key to accomplishing this. Not everyone who reads the articles by Pearman (2019) and Coates (2014) are going to agree with their arguments, but the fact that they made a concerted effort to be coherent increases the likelihood that, at the very least, anyone who reads them will take their messages seriously.
References
Coates, T. (2014). The case for reparations. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
Pearman, F.A. (2019). Gentrification and academic achievement: A review of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 89(1), 125-165. DOI: 10.3102/0034654318805924
Pinker, S. (2014). The sense of style: The thinking person’s guide to writing in the 21st centure. Viking.
Survey Research Critique: “Preparation or Provocation: Student Perceptions of Active Shooter Drills” – Spring 2021
This is a 13 minute video presentation of my critique of a very good survey research article by Michael G. Huskey and Nadine M. Connell that was one of the final assignments required for EDLP 713: Evidence-informed Perspectives on Practice II that I completed in Spring 2021.
2022-2023: Year Three
I Dream of Visualizations – July 6, 2021
Over the last few weeks I have been visualizing visualizations in my sleep. Word clouds, bubblelines, and interactive timelines have been popping up in my dreams much more than I would like them to. This has been a common occurrence for me throughout the doctoral program. Usually after the first couple of weeks of a term when we really begin to immerse ourselves in readings and projects, I begin dreaming of school-related items just about every night. Sometimes fairly good ideas come to me about assignments while I’m sleeping. Sometimes I even remember them when I wake up! In retrospect, I probably should have kept a little notepad at the start of the program near my nightstand to jot down these ideas when they would come to me in my sleep. As the program is rapidly coming to a close (nine months to go!), I suppose that will have to be wisdom I pass on to the next cohort that enters the program.
However, even though dreaming of school heightens my anxiety a little bit, I also believe it’s a sign that I’m very interested in the material. Over the last few weeks as we’ve learned about Google Data Studio and Voyant Tools, I think the most interesting thing I’ve learned is that when engaging in text mining, I need to adopt Evergreen’s suggestion of deciding what story I would like to tell but staying true to the data (n.d.). Dr. Smith’s Voyant Tools project on Beatles lyrics intrigued me because of my love of music and my own experiences as a songwriter. I began to think that rather than look at the lyrics of one of my favorite musical artists, what If I used Voyant Tools to examine my own? Concomitantly, I have missed the engagement in critical self-reflection that was a crucial aspect of the first year of our program, specifically the work we did in Dr. Wilson’s EDLP 709 Equity and Leadership course where we completed several different autoethnography projects throughout the semester. Therefore, our Voyant Tools assignment provided me a great opportunity to engage in a lyrical authoethnography where I could combine the quantitative data of frequently used words and connections of my lyrics over the span of 20 years of albums with the qualitative data of reflecting on the intentions behind the albums when I wrote them.
I was curious to see if this mixed-methods approach would allow me to make any new discoveries not only about the growth of my writing but also about my growth as a person over the past twenty years. At the outset, before I ever plugged any texts into Voyant Tools, I really hoped that I would be able to discern some growth when analyzing the lyrics but I was definitely unsure of this! Thankfully, the quantifiable data backed up my qualitative reflections on how I have grown as a writer and person over the past 20 years. It might be beneficial for individuals to engage in this type of autoethnography using Voyant Tools with their own writing whether it be for professional emails, social media posts, reports, etc. to review visualizations of the words we choose (default to?) when trying to convey our intentions. It’s a tool that, combined with self-reflection, can assist us to examine if our word choices are accurately conveying the message we wish to put forth to people.
As we start preparing our final project, I am going to attempt to “stay true to the data” as Evergreen (n.d.) suggested. I was excited by some of the recent examples of visualization reports and articles on visualizing data that Dr. Smith shared with us. I particularly liked the qualitative visualization feature of including photos of individuals next to their quotes (Emery, n.d.). I think these recent articles and recommendations on text mining and visualizing qualitative data is not only going to help us with our final projects for EDLP 717, but also for our capstone projects once we move past the literature review phase and began diving into the quantitative and qualitative data of our problem of practice. The last few weeks have certainly provided me with a lot of great ideas about how to effectively present data. Now that I think about it, it’s probably a good idea to just go ahead and get that notepad for my nightstand. I’ve got nine more months of EDLP dreams in front of me. Better late than never.
References
Emery, A.K. (2014, September 25). How to visualize qualitative data. Depict data studio. https://depictdatastudio.com/how-to-visualize-qualitative-data/ (Links to an external site.)
Evergreen, S. (n.d.). Qualitative chart chooser. Evergreen data. https://stephanieevergreen.com/qualitative-chart-chooser/
Presentation Formats: Value of the Tried-and-True – July 29, 2021
It’s great to be creative if you can and if it helps communicate your message, but this week’s videos made me realize that one should never underestimate the tried-and-true approach to a presentation. Structure merely serves as the skeleton of a presentation. The job of the presenter should be to put the meat (content + personal engagement) on the bones to hopefully create a compelling and complete entity. Unless it’s a total hot mess, I think structure ultimately has very little to do with the overall impression that a presentation makes. Poking fun at formulaic presentation structure like CBC Comedy (2016) did can be amusing, but at the same time, many presentations delivered in this type of format have had a tremendous impact on people when the content and the presenter’s engagement is compelling. The structure of the Koehler (2013) presentation was certainly different, but I cannot honestly say it was any more interesting than the tried-and-true format to a presentation. I felt the same way about Lawrence Lessig’s “Free Culture” video (TheCosmosGallery, 2010). If a presenter truly has something worthwhile to say and wants to dramatically repeat it three times for impact while roaming around the stage, more power to them. Conversely, if the content is boring and the presenter is not engaged with the audience, the most creative structure in the world will make little difference when attempting to engage with an audience.
In a recent article about Fredericksburg Parks, Recreation and Events’ StoryWalk® project to encourage children to get outdoors and read, University of Mary Washington professor Melissa Wells stated: “As human beings, we naturally process our world and experiences through storytelling, which can help teach concepts that lead to deeper thinking” (as cited in Laiacona, 2021). What I loved about Resonate (2010) was that Duerte placed story at the forefront of discussions on how to create presentations that will “engage, transform, and activate audiences” (p. xx). Structure can help activate audiences (perhaps positively or negatively, as Lessig’s “Free Culture” video certainly moves at a pace that begs to be followed attentively…or dismissed right out of hand), but engagement and transformation comes through content. What story are you trying to tell, what is the best way to communicate it, and will it lead others to deeper thinking and “activate” them?
I appreciated Duerte’s focus on making the audience the hero of the presentation and how it enables the presenter and audience to find common ground (2010). The “call to action” (p. 44) part of a presentation resonated with me the most because it’s a concept that I’m sure I’ve embedded in some of my own prior presentations, but certainly not every one. This past spring, one of the 2021 Ed Leadership cohort capstone groups delivered an excellent defense of their Post-Traditional Students at VCU (Links to an external site.) capstone that had a specific call to action and also embedded student voices throughout the presentation to tell a compelling story. The overall structure of their presentation was fairly straightforward, but the content and the way they chose to use student voices to tell the story of their problem of practice was transformative and kept me engaged as an audience member.
Therefore, I found the most compelling video this week to be Lessig’s “We the People, and the Public We Must Reclaim” (Ted, 2013) because the content (ah, nothing too serious, just the future of our democracy) was compelling. But it was his personal story at the end when he recalled a conversation he had with an audience member and how he tied it into his own feelings as a father to inspire others to take action that I found the most impactful. The TED talk structure he used was for the most part the tried-and-true formula, but his call to action at the end of the presentation envisioned the audience as the hero of the story that has yet to be written about the future of our democracy. When the content and personal presentation style of the speaker is that compelling, I don’t mind seeing the TED talk standards of podium with laptop, microphone headset, and the forced casualness of rolled up shirt sleeves (no jacket and tie for me, everyone—just a casual chat among friends…and how we have to save the world). Be creative if you can, but never underestimate the tried-and-true.
References
CBC Comedy. (2016, June 8). ‘Thought leader’ gives talk that will inspire your thoughts [Video]. YouTube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZBKX-6Gz6A (Links to an external site.)
Duarte, N. (2010). Resonate: Present visual stories that transform audiences. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Koehler, M. (2013, September 12). Punya Mishra & Matthew Koehler: SITE 2008 keynote address [Video]. YouTube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iCPLTz7Z-Q (Links to an external site.)
Laiacona, J. (2021, July 7). College of education, city spin new type of story. UMW Voice. https://www.umw.edu/news/2021/07/07/college-of-education-city-spin-new-type-of-story/
TED. (2013, April 3). We the people, and the Republic we must reclaim. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g
TheCosmosGallery. (2010, November 19). Lawrence Lessig: Free culture. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVk77VQuPAY
Capstone Project – May 2022
Co-authored with Ricardo Clauden-Cross, Ed.D., Tiyacca Simms-Jones, Ed.D., and Fredelito Yvan M. Tugas, Ed.D., our capstone project for the Higher Education Leadership program at VCU was a study of the sophomore student experience at Old Dominion University (ODU) in Norfolk, VA. We conducted an exploratory, sequential, mixed-methods study consisting of a literature review, focus groups and interviews with current ODU juniors and seniors, surveys of current ODU sophomores, staff, and faculty, and interviews with benchmark institutions that have successful sophomore student programming at their schools. We explained the commonly found needs and barriers that sophomore students face, and specifically examined the expressed sophomore student challenges as revealed by ODU students, staff, and faculty. Findings indicated that there is a lack of transitional support, sophomore student development training, and a defined sophomore student experience at ODU. In response to these findings, we created a sophomore student success model that recommends developing a sophomore orientation program, training staff and faculty on sophomore needs and development, creating a streamlined mentoring program, evaluating current academic advising models, and designing a Sophomore Year Experience (SYE).
Sophomores Reign On – A Sophomore Student Success Model for Old Dominion University
