My blog from Houston, Texas. Updated most weeks, usually on Sundays.
During this past week, while the school has been on a break from classes, I have had to be in Australia to renew my US work visa. My visa was due to expire on 5th April, and under the regulations for my type of visa, I had to leave the US and return to my country of nationality for an interview in order to renew the visa.
A trip from Houston to Australia is quite a time consuming enterprise, especially when the objective is to undergo an interview process of just 90 minutes, of which 85 minutes are spent sitting and waiting. Following the interview, there was the 5-7 working-day waiting period to have the visa processed and the passport returned. With all the holidays for Easter, it took a deal of patience to wait for the required number of working days to tick over.
More significantly, as someone who has a compulsive interest in politics, my short visit to Australia gave me the opportunity to witness the aftermath of an extraordinarily inept failed coup attempt for the leadership of the ruling Labor Party, and thus for the Prime Ministership of the country.
The opinion polls are predicting an electoral wipeout of epic proportions for the Labor Party when the scheduled election is held in September this year (presuming the government can survive that long). Consequently, even some senior Labor Party figures are publicly expressing their contempt for the actions of many of those in the government in order to distance themselves from the impending electoral cataclysm.
One of the more reasoned analyses among this multitude of perspectives appeared in several newspapers, including the highly respected “Sydney Morning Herald” and Melbourne’s “The Age”. Written by Bill Kelty, the secretary of the ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions) from 1983 until 2000 and a key person of influence during previous Labor governments under Prime Ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, the article contained one wonderfully succinct paragraph about the nature of politics that caught my eye:
“Politics can be made more difficult than it really is. There are three essential tenets. First, take responsibility; second, reject the ideas that distract, divide and discount the nation; and third, argue to the last breath for the ideas and ideals that make the nation a better place. Honesty will, nearly always, win over duplicity.”
The reason that the paragraph attracted my attention was that the same points could be made about leadership in a school. Perhaps surprisingly for the casual observer, school leadership can seem at times to have a similar level of complexity and intrigue as national government, although (mercifully) at a smaller if no-less-intense scale.
Kelty’s first point: take responsibility.
I think there are two aspects to taking responsibility – taking responsibility for ourselves, and fulfilling our responsibility towards others. However, as Colin Powell expressed it so eloquently: “Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off”. For a leader or aspiring leader whose main but misguided focus is popularity, opposition will inevitably lead to inertia, which is why responsible leadership is incompatible with popularity as its driving force. This has been one of the unfortunate lessons learned recently in the Australian political scene.
Anger can often be a subtle symptom of not taking responsibility. Fortunately, I don’t have to deal with anger in my role as Head of School very often, but on the rare occasions when I do encounter a person who is angry, I see someone who is trying to shift blame and responsibility towards others. Conversely, a person who is optimistic is almost always a person who is taking effective responsibility for their own actions and has things well under control as a result. It follows from this that as a school leader, an important part of my taking responsibility is maintaining a calm, clear-thinking disposition, even when confronted by resistance, anger and blame.
Kelty’s second point was to reject ideas that distract and divide.
In my experience as a Head of School over many years, the ideas that distract and divide fall into two main categories that all my ToK students would (or should) instantly recognise – straw man fallacies and “argumentum ad hominem”. (I guess there is also a possible third category – lies, deception and misinformation – but as Kelty says, “honesty will, nearly always, win over duplicity”, so I won’t dwell on this distracting third category here).
A straw man fallacy arises when someone misrepresents an opponent’s position, often by exaggerating it or making it more extreme (thus setting up a ‘straw man’), and then proceeds to attack the ‘straw man’ rather than address the argument. “Argumentum ad hominem” arises when a person attacks an opponent on personal grounds rather than addressing the argument under discussion (attacking the person rather than the argument). Sadly, both approaches are as common in schools as they are in wider society.
Differences of opinion and conflicts are inevitable whenever people interact meaningfully, and indeed they are central to a healthy democracy. It is the way in which these differences are handled that indicates the health of that democracy. Experience has shown me that exactly the same principle applies to school communities.
Kelty’s third proposition (paraphrased) is that a leader should argue to the last breath for the ideas and ideals that make the school a better place.
Nelson Mandela has few equals as an example of persistence and determination, given that he spent his entire adult life mobilising his people against apartheid, remaining undeterred through 27 years of imprisonment. Mandela’s persistence in patiently arguing for positive change is legendary, and I cannot think of any better role model that I could have had.
A few years ago, I wrote an entire blog about the lessons of leadership that we can learn from the life of Nelson Mandela, so I will not repeat those points here. Suffice to say that change – anywhere – inevitably provokes a reaction, and this is especially so in schools where inertia and personal interests can sometimes be more deeply entrenched than is the case in profit-focussed enterprises. As a dedicated and experienced change manager, I have probably found myself in the position of advocating for robust discussions about change, and then managing the ensuing process of change, more than most other Heads of School. Indeed, the reason I went into education three and a half decades ago was to be a catalyst for bringing about positive change that would benefit young lives. I was therefore encouraged when I read Bill Kelty’s third proposition, because the sad reality is that the process of leading others through necessary change can at times be quite disheartening.
Kelty’s three tenets were written to illuminate the political process, especially in the context of contemporary Australia. As soon as I read Kelty’s paragraph, I was struck by the potent applicability of his three tenets to leadership in schools.
However, the real point I want to make here is that I can see a new, different and far more powerful third application of Kelty’s three tenets. I believe that these same three tenets can make an excellent set of guiding principles for our students to adopt as they go through life, and hopefully lead others by their own example over many decades into the future.
The topic of developing leadership in students is often a controversial one. Over the years, I have heard strong arguments supporting the idea that every student should be trained for leadership, and equally strong counter-arguments along the lines that leadership is not for everyone. To a large extent, these arguments tend to be somewhat futile because they seldom agree on a common understanding of what the word ‘leadership’ actually means.
To me, developing leadership in students does not mean preparing them for political office; it means equipping them with the skills they need to become people of influence in whatever sphere of life they find themselves.
If leadership simply means being a positive influence on other people, how wonderful it would be if every Awty graduate (1) took responsibility, (2) rejected ideas that distracted and divided, and (3) argued to their last breath for the ideas and ideals that make the world a better place.
Awty has the potential to be a source to produce 1500 new Nelson Mandelas, each committed to a principled and persistent life of fostering positive change!
I cannot think of a more appropriate and enduring legacy for the education that each and every student receives here at The Awty International School.
Three tenets of principled leadership
Sunday, 7 April 2013