Anne Maschler EDAD 501 Brad Allison 08/14/12 Reflection #1 In the first ten minutes or so of the conversation between

Goleman and Senge, I was unsuccessfully looking for a thread in the conversation. I wasnt enjoying it or getting anything out of it until Senge made a distinction between talking about the characteristics of a successful team as opposed to investigating how a successful team is created. This idea became the guiding question as I was listening to the rest of the recording: As a leader, how can I contribute to creating a successful team? Process of Inquiry Communication is abundant once a team forms and operates as a team. Meetings, lunch chats, quick check-ins in the hallway, late night frustration calls: the quantity of exchanged words leaves nothing to be desired (at least in my team). But the quality of communication is what really matters. Senge differentiates between Talking at each other and Talking with one another, and I dont have to think much to realize that there is too much of the first and some, but not enough of the latter at my school. One way of truly talking with each other is finding that space between withdrawal and aggression either one of which I ave often observed or flt myself) where people think together. An effective leader reaffirms a sense of possibility, and invites honest participation by putting their ideas up for discussion (and, of course, openly discussing others ideas). The result of this is a shared process of inquiry, which will lead to deeper insights than a presentation of facts or a mock discussion in which the leader/facilitator already has an outcome in mind. Senge mentions that only when we think together can we act together. As a teacher, I was in many meetings in which I was presented with a new program, a new policy, even a new school mission. The reason that so many of these fail is because they are not properly implemented because there is no buy-in, no sense of ownership and there was no collective thinking at the root of them. The lack of collective thinking not only has a negative effect on the performance of the group, it also ignores the fact that more and better thoughts emerge when all voices are heard. As a leader, I need to consider collective intelligence and the inquiry process when making staffing decisions (considering the team as a whole), and when leading or participating in conversations. So far, I have been very guilty of the do as I do model. I tend to think (as maybe many teachers do) that I know best and I work the hardest and therefore, often without being conscious of it, just want everyone to just follow my path and do so fast and efficiently. Instead, I would like to learn how to invite my colleagues to help me find new solutions, visions and ideas by being open and honest. Leading a team to efficiently completing tasks is a strength of mine, but I will have to work on trusting others capabilities and letting go of my ideas if necessary to grow in this area and develop this leadership quality. I think that having taken on three coordinators positions and being in this program will force me to trust in my team more

and that in the process of doing so I will become more comfortable with it and better at inviting others into collective thinking. Substituting Effort for Intelligence How much time do we spend in a team talking, discussing and arguing without any real result because there is no quality of conversation? At my school, we discuss a lot and I sometimes feel like we trick ourselves into believing that the talking is the work and the mere fact that we sit in a room and exchange words makes us productive. And sometimes we do and do, task after task, half because there are so many tasks to be taken care of at a pilot school, half because action feels good. In listening to Senges ideas on substituting effort for intelligence, I realized that his call for slowing down, for stopping in our tracks would be truly beneficial for our team. It would allow us to get a better sense of what we really need, what our priorities are and how we best address them. We would address the real issues more often, rather than throwing 20 man hours at one of the symptoms of it. As a leader, would like to facilitate that slowing down. I know this is difficult, because we are all so caught up in going faster and faster, always trying to catch up. Although this might seem to go against the idea, I think I will try to seek out systematic ways to allow for a more intelligent way of working together. I have had some success with substituting the weekly staff meeting with a very structured 30 minute meeting and I could imagine a similar structure working (at least in the beginning stages) to build a culture of going slow to go fast. Another idea I would like to work on more in this realm is to truly internalize the difference Senge describes between solving the problem as supposed to being oriented towards something you want to create. I think if we as a team focus more on the latter, it will force us to take time to consider priorities and shared vision before we act. Awareness What stood out to me the most in this conversation, maybe because its something I have never thought about much in professional terms, is the idea of awareness. It connects to the previous two concepts because it requires openness just as the process of inquiry does and it requires and facilitates the slowing down that is needed to work intelligently. I thought Senges words suspending ourselves from our habitual stream of thought described this idea best. We need to step back and take time to look at the way we think and view things if we truly want to progress. This idea reminded me of Tim Wises look at the assumptions and biases that lie underneath many of the things we feel, say and do. Awareness also has to do with acknowledging our own and others feelings. Rather than acting on an emotion, in an effective team, people will deliberately share their emotions, make themselves vulnerable and share themselves in a constructive way. Doing so can prevent conflict and facilitate a sense of trust as a basis for truly collaborating. I am also intrigued by the idea of what goes on even when nobody speaks or does anything. We have such an urge to talk about things that we tend to be trapped by words. Goleman talks about doctors tending to want to give a diagnosis. Similarly, I have noticed myself and others wanting to name the problem and name the solution. We probably cut ourselves short with that, simplify things. But who would dare to have a silent staff meeting? Maybe I will. Or maybe I will first start to work on my own awareness (as Senge points out, cultivating awareness of a group requires individual awareness).

In my private life, I have long been working on being more aware of my true feelings and what causes them, rather than letting them turn into anger and frustration. In my professional life, I need to put the ideas of slowing down and being aware together to allow myself to be less reactive. I would like to truly embrace that concept and make it a foundation of my leadership and communication style, so that I can then start to create group awareness with my staff. We get so caught up in the day to day operations, we let weeks pass without ever really taking the time to look at where were at and where we want to go. I as much as my colleagues am quick to race for a solution and the satisfaction of a task completed. I think if I can work on developing more patience and putting trust in the process of slowing down and becoming aware, I will become a happier, more effective leader and will have a happier, more effective team.