During our staff development on Friday, I talked with teachers about our district vision of learning with passion, innovation and leadership; about our commitment to focus time for teachers to learn though a different kind of opportunity next year; about how incredible we already are and how I know we are exactly the faculty to learn together, sharing ideas and finding our own way through Professional Learning Communities.
As I was talking I was thinking about the teachers and teaching aides and administrators before me. What were they thinking? Did they understand where we want to go? How could I help them realize that what I say is what I mean and there isn’t some covert, hidden agenda? How can we best support and encourage them in their own learning?
And I was thinking about resistance to change. I was wondering if I had any teachers who were thinking, “please just leave me alone in my room!”
But where positive energy and enthusiasm for learning and leading sometimes end, is at the point in time when we start focusing our plans on the 2-5% who are negative and critical, no matter the plan.
We have an incredible faculty who at their core want to do what’s best for kids, who want to inspire and lead and teach with meaning. This is a faculty who does their best each and every day, whether or not anyone is watching. This is the faculty I’m focusing on as we set out to form Professional Learning Networks where teachers will learn together, in self selected groups on topics of their choice that enhance learning with passion, innovation and leadership. I refuse to lead by thinking about the one or two potential nay-sayers to any plan.
And when I read Seth Godin’s post about the lizard brain, it made me think about brain chemistry and general human nature. Here’s the post, in its entirety. Seth says,
How can I explain the never-ending irrationality of human behavior?
We say we want one thing, then we do another. We say we want to be successful but we sabotage the job interview. We say we want a product to come to market, but we sandbag the shipping schedule. We say we want to be thin but we eat too much. We say we want to be smart but we skip class or don’t read that book the boss lent us.
The contradictions never end. When someone shows up and acts without contradiction, we’re amazed. When an athlete just does the sport, or when a writer just writes the words, we can’t help but watch, astonished at the purity of their actions. Why is it so difficult to do what we say we’re going to do?
The lizard brain.
Or as Steven Pressfield describes it, the resistance. The resistance is the voice in the back of our head telling us to back off, be careful, go slow, compromise. The resistance is writer’s block and putting jitters and every project that ever shipped late because people couldn’t stay on the same page long enough to get something out the door.
The resistance grows in strength as we get closer to shipping, as we get closer to an insight, as we get closer to the truth of what we really want. That’s because the lizard hates change and achievement and risk.
The lizard is a physical part of your brain, the pre-historic lump near the brain stem that is responsible for fear and rage and reproductive drive. Why did the chicken cross the road? Because her lizard brain told her to.
Want to know why so many companies can’t keep up with Apple? It’s because they compromise, have meetings, work to fit in, fear the critics and generally work to appease the lizard. Meetings are just one symptom of an organization run by the lizard brain. Late launches, middle of the road products and the rationalization that goes with them are others.
The amygdala isn’t going away. Your lizard brain is here to stay, and your job is to figure out how to quiet it and ignore it. This is so important, I wanted to put it on the cover of my new book. We realized, though, that the lizard brain is freaked out by a picture of itself, and if you want to sell books to someone struggling with the resistance (that would be all of us) best to keep it a little more on the down low.
Now you’ve seen the icon and you know its name. What are you going to do about it?
Let’s work together to keep the lizard part of our brains from slowing us down. I’m game, how about you?
Wow, this is the kinds of discussions that I deal with in working with districts and schools in Michigan. Maybe an outsider like myself might have something to add (Minor note: I lived in the Rochester-Geneseo area years ago)…
Change is inherently difficult because it asks individuals to move from their comfort zone to a different place, however large or slight. Presuming positive intent, I’ve found that “some” of the strongest resisters to change are those who hold some trepidation about being able to succeed in the new environment.
From this dialogue, it appears that Mrs. Moritz is doing what effective leaders do: Communicate openly, involve stakeholders in the shaping and planning, and as this blog shows put herself “out there” for comment. Matthew Tabor’s comments are charged with a presumption that Mrs. Moritz’s intent might be negative. Where as my take on Mrs. Moritz’s comments to “Teacher” was, in tone, addressing the “Teacher’s” possible misunderstandings or misjudgments in a professional manner, and as the Instructional Leader, invitational for more dialogue. Why? Maybe to support and meet that teacher’s needs for understanding?
The lizard analogy happens often when “Change” is perceived as threatening, and a person has a gut reaction to view it as negative before the dialogue takes place, or does not seek in a constructive way to find out “what’s going on.”
I like what Stephen Covey talks about as “Seek to Understand before being Understood” as a place to start conversation about change.
Pingback: Resistance to Change
I must say I have admired your courage for leading transparently through your blog for the past several years. Allowing others to voice their discomfort with change is the first step in getting them to admit change is needed. I applaud you and your Board for setting goals and moving your learning community out of its collective comfort zone. This conversation is evidence that you are making progress! Lead on!
I fully agree with Cody Heaps! When I post on this blog, in favor of the Superintendent, I run the risk of alienating myself from the teaching staff. I will state what I believe to be the truth whether the staff agrees or disagrees. I will not hide behind anonymity.
I also agree that Mr. Tabor’s arguments do not move us forward. Even if our precious egos do not accept the ideas put forth by the Superintendent, it still remains that it is her task to make this school a better place for children to learn. If we are so fragile that we cannot be asked to be a better teacher, perhaps we shouldn’t be teachers.
Lastly, this communication issue that Mr. Tabor keeps writing about holds no water. Being a person in the room when Mrs. Moritz advanced this topic, I can say that there was no ambiguity. “You will have school time to develop in any way you desire. “ There is no ambiguity in that statement. In addition, as Cody Heaps stated, how can you say that the superintendent is not communicating on her blog! Mr. Tabor, if you are cold it is because you are “outside” of the discussion.
Hello Everyone,
Firstly, let me say that I am not a teacher, but I am a retired Marine who was often charged with teaching young Marines, many within months of their leaving your halls and classrooms. I’ve been reading this blog for years, and I’d like to strongly disagree with the interpretation of this post that Mr. Tabor and the anonymous “teacher” seem to share. At no point is Ms. Moritz stating or implying that she wishes to discourage or suppress healthy, experience based disagreements and discussion of the BOE initiatives. The very existence of this blog countermands the arguments that Ms. Moritz fails to communicate and is resistant to criticism. I’ve always thought that this is a very open and transparent forum provided by someone who really doesn’t need to allow anyone access to the thoughts behind her decisions.
The point of this article is that in any group, whenever all points have been discussed two things happen, someone HAS to make a decision, and someone else is going to complain about it. And, if you’re going to complain it should be legitimate and in a way that helps everyone move FORWARD and not nescessarily back to the known and safe.
A few more points, anonymous posting is cowardly. If you care enough about something to write have the courage to stand up for your own ideas. Also, the amygdala isn’t an inherent neurological deficiency as Mr. Tabor stated (I hope you’re not a science teacher!), it’s a very vital very old structure of the human brain evolved to keep us alive. If you don’t believe in evolution don’t take antibiotics, they’re all based on Darwin.
Cold enough for ya’?
I cannot believe the direction of this argument! It appears to me that the original blog was an attempt to encourage teachers to take responsibility for their own learning. This is a simple concept. Here is time for you to learn your craft. You complain that Superintendent Days are not beneficial. You then complain when the superintendent gives you that time to develop your own learning strategy. Can someone please tell me what I am missing here? What is wrong with this idea? In what part of Mrs. Moritz’s discussion did she demand that you learn a specific learning strategy? In what way are you not in charge of your own learning experience? I think it is a great idea and I will tell you why: Over the last five years I have been involved in a project called “Teaching American History” (TAH) It is a government sponsored grant program and local schools can create their own grants for their own purposes. Our local grant concentrated on making history teachers better historians. There were no seminars on teaching strategies. The concept was simple: I am a better historian, therefore a better teacher. The Randolph initiative that we are discussing has the potential to do the same thing. You have the choice to improve on your teaching skills in any way you want. I how can Mrs. Moritz or the Board of Education be the bad guy in that scenario?
In regard to the post by Mr. Tabor, I believe that it, all together, misses the point. The message of this blog is not “lizards”. At what point is learning your craft contrary to “personal experience, professional judgment, or evidence”? There is no doubt that there are some actions, taken in the past, in which we could use these arguments. This is not one of them!
I’ll let Teacher speak to the specific situations at your school, but there are a few important points to consider:
1) If you’ve got to write a blog comment detailing all the elements of these processes – to ‘correct’ a staff member’s understanding – then you’ve got a communication problem.
2) Rhetoric of the type you used in the original post creates a chilling effect on debate just as I pointed out. It shouldn’t be shocking that a post dismissing criticism or concerns as inherent fear, “lizard brained” resistance, etc. resulted in a staff member posting anonymously. Who’d want to throw their name out in response to a few hundred words charging them with being a senseless curmudgeon and then show up to work the next day?
3) The Superintendent may feel squeamish about anonymous comments – though there’s no reason to, as common public processes such as FOIL fully protect and honor anonymity – but shouldn’t treat the public [or staff] as though they’ve been done a favor by being allowed to participate. Unless a comment suggests something outrageously libelous/slanderous – and those are two high bars in public discourse – we all benefit from reading it. Apologies, but any discomfort the Superintendent feels regarding anonymity comes with the job.
It’s getting colder and colder in here.
Teacher–
The BOE met twice for “retreat” purposes, including developing BOE goals which I’ve talked about with teachers at faculty meetings, posted on the blog and have always called BOE goals. The administrative team is presenting our goals at the next BOE meeting tomorrow night–it’s open session, please know that you are welcome, as always, to join us. Mr. Mottern, Mr. Davison and Dr. Rockey are all working with their faculties to set building level goals–certainly with input from everyone who chooses to participate. I’m not sure why you think that the BOE set goals for you. What they have done, with me, is set a vision for the district, something 97% of teachers agreed with when surveyed before Christmas and which I’ve talked about a lot in person and on the blog, Learning with Passion, Innovation and Leadership.
In regard to the “initiative” you refer to, which I believe must be the Professional Learning Networks, the BOE will also learn of this tomorrow evening in open session, please come if you like. You’re wrong that it was developed without any say from teachers. This idea was actually developed with some of your colleagues, the Learning Club leaders, in a day long session to evaluate what’s working/not working in our learning clubs. We realize that one of the difficulties with the clubs is that many teachers may not be able to meet after school and another difficulty that many teachers may be more comfortable in a learning group they select. We then further discussed it as an administrative team as a way to support and empower our teachers in their own learning. The only way Professional Learning Networks are tied to the BOE is that they are a way to support teachers in their learning, something the BOE named as a goal.
I’ve been blogging since 2006 and haven’t posted many anonymous comments but did this time because I think it’s important to add your thoughts to the conversation–please know that I’d love to talk with you further at any time that works for you. I’d also love to hear from our other teachers–am I missing the mark with the PLN’s? I truly thought this was a way to improve what we do with staff development. Does the anonymous teacher speak for many of you? Help me to understand if you think I’m on the wrong path here.
Kimberly
Mr. Tabor brings up some very interesting points which should be noted.
What’s frustrating as a teacher is that this new initiative was created by the Board of Education (without ANY say from the teachers) Now, teachers are being told they too have to follow this initiative.
It is our understanding that the Board of Education went on a retreat over the summer, and came up with these initiatives. Why is it suddenly the teacher’s responsibility to follow these initiatives? Aren’t NYS standards, Thoughtful Classroom, Capturing Kids Hearts, and the other countless programs we bring into this school, along with our own “initiatives” in the classroom enough? Why is the BOE suddenly setting our goals?
I brought this up in my first post, but when choices are being made that affect the classrooms, without the staff having knowledge (the decision to allow Facebook in school), teachers tend to be hesitant to “get on board.”
After reading this post, I’ve got a hard time believing that you’d take seriously staff criticism of your direction/initiatives – and even less so if it came from parents or community members.
You’ve painted criticism as being the default argument posed by a significant percentage of your [and everyone’s] staff.
You put forth an article that blames an inherent neurological deficiency that forces us to live in fear.
Do you, Superintendent, realize that sometimes resistance to an idea or initiative results from experience, professional judgment or simply from contrary evidence? This post suggests that you’d wave off criticism as being the result of a small, closed mind [with some sort of lump in it], a fear of seemingly all things change, just not ‘getting it’ – or worse, an ignorant commitment to opposition for opposition’s sake.
The weather’s just as cold here a couple hours east of you; I’m sure we’d agree that we can all live without further chilling effects.