Category Archives: Leadership

For all leaders, no matter who they are

The feminine and feminist leadership challenge: Embracing the “both/and” rather than “either/or” #leaningin

Posted on by
1

A number of years ago I made a professional decision that I wouldn’t shy away from the “difficult conversation”. At the time I was working for a school system and I had witnessed too many serious problems that need not have escalated if, when the leader was faced the brutal facts, he/she was prepared to take action:

  • Have the conversation,
  • Address the issue and
  • If necessary ask the person to change/improve/leave.

Yet facing up to this seemed to be avoided, and the impending disaster wasn’t.

These conversations are never easy – for either side. I was involved in a mediation where a new principal at a school was addressing an unfair dismissal claim by a long-standing employee. Suffice to say, there were many circumstances surrounding the decision and while potentially justified, it was enacted clumsily, due to the (obvious) heightened emotional context. After listening to the situation I shared my observation that it needed to be done, but could have been done better. Once this was acknowledged and the principal gave an apology, the matter drew to a close.

Being in a position of authority doesn’t make the difficult conversations any easier. Leadership is often defined in terms of opposites – autocratic vs democratic, task-oriented vs people-oriented. Today’s leaders need to be  holistic. In the uncertainty and shifting times of this century, we actually need to be able to embrace this duality of leadership.

Especially women.

It has been fascinating reading about Margaret Thatcher over the last week since her death. Kaiser and Kaplan in their HBR post (16 April, 2013), ‘Thatcher’s Greatest Strength Was Her Greatest Weakness’, write:

…we will remember Margaret Thatcher as much for her leadership style as for her polarizing politics – in fact, the two are almost identical… she attacked the status quo and stuck to her guns in driving her agenda through opposition.

But as the title says, her greatest strength was also her weakness. Thatcher embodied the “assertive forceful approach” at the expense of “a participative, enabling approach.” She definitely wasn’t described as a feminist. It could be argued that she displayed femininity, Thatcher took great care to manage her ‘look’ – the hair, the suits and the style, she didn’t see the need to dress in a masculine way to compete in a male world. However, her manner presented a different side when faced with her rivals:

“I must say the adrenaline flows when they really come out fighting at me and I fight back. I stand there and say, ‘Now come on Maggie, you are wholly on your own; no one can help you.’ And I love it.” (Quoted in Kaiser & Kaplan, 2013)

Says it all – this was the era of the lone, strong, decisive leader. This is not the leadership required today. Thatcher is not my role model as a female leader.

I am committed to growing women in leadership:

1. We need more women to stand up as leaders

2. We need to be both/and leaders

3. We need to support and encourage one another

When I was reading Lean In, I found myself describing the book and sharing the ideas with my friends, yet discounting it as ‘feminism’, until I got to the chapter that challenged me and the use of the F-word. Sandberg writes,

Social gains are never handed out. They must be seized. Leaders of the women’s movement… spoke out loudly and bravely to demand the rights we now have. Their courage changed our culture and our laws to the benefit of us all.

Currently, only 24% of women in the United States say they consider themselves feminist. Yet when offered a more specific definition of feminism – “a feminist is someone who believes in social, political and economic equality of the sexes”  …rises to 65%

I’ve decide to embrace the word. ‘Fitting in’ as a female leader doesn’t involve pretending to be male. I need to be my authentic self, and this is the environment in which the people I lead will be able to flourish.

I am resolute about embracing the both/and of leadership. This means, that when I need to have the difficult conversation I try to do it in such a way that means I stick to my message, yet the person is valued and (hopefully) keeps dignity in tact.

It is never easy.

It often involves a sleepless night.

I’m not perfect.

I want to see a generation of women who can embrace the duality of leadership – with the right *measure of feminist and feminine.

Read Lean In.

@anneknock

*As soon as I wrote the word ‘measure’ I realised that this was the key. Another post on this coming up.

 

 

Taking the pledge: My opinion doesn’t always need expression.

Posted on by
Reply

Social media has potentially given everyone a voice. Anyone with an opinion has an avenue to express it and an audience to receive it.

But should we express an opinion just because we hold it?

I’m taking the pledge:

I will hold my opinion unless:

  • I’m invited

  • It will add value and can change things

  • I’m willing to own it publicly and accept the consequences

In Australia, we are a couple of months into the longest election campaign we’ve ever had. As a result politicians are gaining as much mileage out of every opportunity as they can.  During my afternoon commute, the broadcaster of choice, ABC702’s Richard Glover, is regularly receiving SMS messages, tweets, emails and facebook comments making accusations of bias, for and against each political player he may interview. He regularly keeps the listener informed of the current wave of opinion that floods onto his screen, tossing one way or the other, dependent on the bias of the hearer.

Perhaps the true measure of media election bias should be comparing these comments? If as many people complain that Richard is biased one way or the other, then he’s fair!

Opinions held don’t necessarily need voice.

It seems that now there is the opportunity for our opinion to be heard, almost at every level of society, that we somehow think that (a) we have a right to express it – no matter what the topic, the context or our expertise and (b) it has merit – just because I think it I should say it.

I’ve often found myself in a group email situation, discussing a significant matter, of which I hold views. More often than not I will write a ‘reply all’, then stop, think, reread and delete. Weighing in won’t necessarily add value.

So it’s a matter of self regulation.

1. Am I invited? Specifically or broadly. If you read this post, follow me on Twitter, then that’s my opportunity, but not necessarily my right to express my opinion. Feel free to unsubscribe or unfollow.

2. Will it make a difference to the outcome? I’ve made a long-held decision to be positive and helpful in my communication. If I can add value I will make the effort. But will endeavour to express my ideas constructively.

3. Am I prepared to publicly own my views and carry out any consequences? I don’t always publish what I write. I must have courage of convictions.

There will always be injustices, unfairness and ‘wrongs’ that will occur in the world. But I refuse to tie myself in knots for things I cannot directly impact, instead, to direct my attention to those things where I can make a difference.

I adopt the Covey idea that asks, In which circle does it belong?

  • Circle of concern (These are things that concerns me, but I can’t actually do anything about, yet)

  • Circle of influence (These are things over which I have influence)

Sometimes it’s helpful to release the pressure valve when something is frustratingly in my circle of concern. I might say to my husband or a trusted friend – “just listen”, or I will write my thoughts down, just to be able to order them and express them, then not do anything about it.

Like a muscle, holding and purposefully expressing my opinion takes time and training to build strength. I’m not perfect, but I have taken the pledge.

I will hold my opinion unless:

  • I’m invited:

  • It will add value and can change things

  • I’m willing to own it publicly and accept the consequences

@anneknock

Putting the legs on vision. Making it scalable, sustainable and enduring

Posted on by
Reply

There are some people who embrace change and others have change thrust upon them.

There are a few who are visionary leaders, some who put legs on vision, others who are swept along and a handful who doggedly hang onto the status quo.

Which are you?

I’m one of the people ‘who put legs on vision’. Great vision inspires me to action, then, as I look around I can see:

  • Obstacles to overcome
  • Systems to set up
  • Mindsets that need changing
  • Policies to develop
  • Spaces to change
  • Tough conversations to be had
  • People to encourage

Each of these creates the context that helps the vision becomes reality.

Change needs more than a great leader. It needs a concerted, coordinated and sustained reworking of multiple work systems. (Shea and Solomon, 2013)

‘Systems’, not a particularly exciting word, but unless the vision is surrounded by good policy and systems it won’ be scalable, sustainable and enduring.

Think about the vision that motivates you to action. Imagine a scene that encapsulates the ‘vision to reality’. If you are in education, maybe it looks like this:

2011-03-03_0088The learning space is busy, active and productive. Teachers and students are co-workers. One teacher is alongside a student explaining a concept, another taking a small group in an instructional session. You see a group of students are working together on a project together, excitedly sharing and forming ideas.

There is engagement, it is highly relational and academically rigorous. A community of engaged, motivated and inspired learners.

How do you put legs on your vision?

Have a plan to develop systems, behaviours and attitudes that  are consistent with the vision. A vision without a plan is a dream. It will remain in your head and reach a dead-end. A plan gives direction and grounds the vision in reality. It generates action.

Remember the scene in your mind? Think about it in terms of these eight areas that will keep it moving forward. They are the patterns of behaviour that become the levers for change.

Organisation: Identify the most effective leadership structure that directs, guides and values people. Can the current leadership structure be adapted for the vision or is a new one required?

Place: Establish the physical and virtual environment that maximises productivity, learning and creativity. Can the scene be achieved in the current spaces? Does the furniture work? How does your virtual space serve the vision?

Task: Articulate what the ‘work’ actually looks like. How will this be explained, supported and modelled?

People: Find the right people and equip them. What do the people need to learn, relearn and unlearn?

Motivation: Facilitate an environment that keeps your people motivated and on track – rewards and consequences. How will you recognise and reward embracing the vision and ‘having a go’?

Measurement: Measure what matters. What are the top five areas that matter to the vision?

Communication: Think through and articulate who is responsible for communicating what. How will you manage the message?

Decisions: Authority and authorisations that enable not disable, that bring clarity not confusion. What are the levels of responsibility for complexity of decisions to be made?

Your plan guides strategy.  A vision is not the past nor the present – it represents the future. It’s new, scary and unknown. The only way change will endure is through addressing the work systems that surround the vision.

Shea and Solomon identified these eight elements that represent the essential areas to the plan. Each of these points can be further articulated and developed. If you are committed to your vision, believe in it and do whatever it takes to make it happen. Here is a starting point.

@anneknock

What’s your strategy to keep Gen Ys engaged and interested in teaching for the long haul*? (You may have to lead them differently)

Posted on by
1

(*about five years seems to be the long haul for these guys)

Recruiting, training and retaining young teachers is a challenge. Gen Y have a high work turnover rate, so instead of rolling our collective Baby Boomer/Gen X eyes, maybe we should be considering how we keep them. We need them to stay. Our kids need great teachers.

In case you are wondering Gen Ys were born from 1980  to 1994. The oldest one are turning 33 this year and the youngest are 19. These are our current generation of new (ish) teachers. This is what research tells us

Generation Y are the most materially endowed generation ever. Currently aged 18-32, They are very tech savvy- bringing social media and productivity skills to the workplace.

The global generation- culturally diverse, mobile careers, travellers and globally aware. Gen Y aren’t just a product of their times, they’re also a product of their life stage.

They will work longer than previous generations with the retirement age and pension age pushed back. They will average more than 4 careers and 17 employers in their lifetime.

Forget the training manual or the staff meeting- enter the company vodcasts, instant messaging, and even content-laden music.

We will see an increasing trend towards people unplugging, and hotdesking: the era of activity based working. So the rise of ping-pong tables, well-equipped lunch (and breakfast) rooms, mini-nap spaces, time-out rooms, and outdoor gardens and green spaces.

Having managed to complete their pre-service education is one step toward their new career. A newly-minted education graduate wrote in an opinion piece recently:

After dragging myself to the finishing line, I have finally completed my diploma in education at a university in Sydney. I shudder in horror on behalf of the unwitting students who will follow in my footsteps, since in many Australian universities single-year diplomas in education are being phased out in preference for two-year master’s degrees. Or 24-month agonies, as I prefer to term them.

One of my friends, with a tutor who presumably has missed the last decade, was asked to present a slide presentation in which each slide had to have a different background colour, different fonts and a working hyperlink. Oh my. I shall put my typewriter away.

Not only does the pre-service education we provide need a good shaking, but also how we present teaching as a career worth investing in, once they have graduated.

According to McCrindle Research there are five key factors in recruiting and retaining Gen Y

1. Work/life balance

2. Workplace culture

3. Varied job role

4. Management style

5. Training

In summary – They don’t want to be workaholics, they want to belong and not have the same-old-day-in-day-out, they are seeking relationship and community from their supervisor and you’ll keep them longer if you challenge with new learning opportunities.

So, what do you need to think about in your school that will encourage teachers with great potential, the right attitude and aptitude to stay?

Clarity in standards and expectations – If work/life balance is important, then we can’t make assumptions about standards. Clearly state expectations.

Pay attention to culture –  There is a desire to belong. Be a thermostat, not a thermometer. Set the right culture for community and do what needs to be done to maintain the right temperature.

Provide opportunities – Find ways of throwing the curve ball, a new opportunity that can interest and excite from time to time.

Lead relationally  - Leaders are more effective in the context of positive relationship than an authoritarian style. It’s actually more enjoyable for everyone.

Keep sharpening the saw - “90% of Generation Y’s who receive regular training from their employer are motivated to stay with their employer”. Provide new ways to address their professional learning needs.

Those of us of earlier generations can bemoan the changing motivators of younger professionals, or we can appreciate them for what they bring.  Of course there are things that they need to learn and change, but so did we, once upon a time.

@anneknock

Innovative leadership in 3 simple steps: Know, Show & Let Go

Posted on by
Reply

Is our DNA evident across all we do? 

Along with another colleague on the senior leadership team, I am responsible for ensuring that leadership and innovation are embedded deeply and are part of the DNA of the school. These two elements are essential to our identity.

What is DNA? From a scientific perspective it is deoxyribonucleic acid, the carrier of genetic information. The term is also used metaphorically to describe the distinctive characteristics of an organisation’s culture and identity, yet unlike the body’s DNA that is set, this needs to be regularly communicated, reinforced and supported.

I have found the idea by futurist, Joel Barker a very useful description of what leaders need to do.

 We manage within a paradigm and lead between paradigms.

DNA

What is a paradigm? It’s a pattern, a model or a set of practices that define what we do, both now and into the future.

As leaders we need to simultaneously manage the current paradigm, getting ‘this’ job done, and lead our people toward a new paradigm. Both are essential:

  • Managing in present: organising people and resources within the current context

  • Leading to the future: taking people to a new ‘place’

We are usually very comfortable in the present, we know what needs to be done and how to get it done. Often our people are more than happy to stay where we are right now, it’s known and comfortable. If we are leaders, however, we also know we must be taking them somewhere. Whether it is their personal growth, or organisational progress. We are taking our teams, organisation or even our family to something better.

What is innovation? At the root of the word ‘innovation’ is ‘nova’, which means ‘new’. Innovation may be values, solution or practices that meet new and emerging requirements. To you and your team ‘innovation’ may mean growth, new markets or reinvention, whatever the context – people need good leaders.

So how do we practically lead our teams to this new paradigm of innovation?

Know, Show and Let Go

Know Show Let go

Know (not assume)

  • Your people

  • The job to be done

  • The values that shape us

Show (not just tell)

  • What’s to be done

  • How to do it

  • The attitudes and behaviours we expect

Let go (not control)

  • Release your team to do

  • Observe

  • Assess and plan

This is a cyclical process, once you let go, observe and assess. We soon see what people don’t know or now need to know and then repeat… ad infinitum.

@anneknock

 

There’s no *place* like *home* – why comfort and community matter when we work, learn, play & create

Posted on by
1

This post is my presentation at the Education Future Forum, 15 March 2013

Slide02

There is no sense of ‘place’ that is greater than ‘home’.

Hugh Mackay, in What makes us tick? Ten desires that drive us  says

‘My place’ is partly an anchor, partly a refuge, partly a stable point in a world that seems kaleidoscopic in the complexity of shifting patterns…we need to know where we belong; we need to feel that some physical place stands as a symbol of our uniqueness and acceptance.

The places where we spend most time are home and work. The picture of the employee in isolation is changing, as we prefer to work in community with others. Yahoo recently banned working from how, because as CEO Melissa Mayer stated, “we are one Yahoo” and community and connection is essential to culture change.

The traditional office  isn’t  particularly inspiring either. People often like to just hang out, work in proximity with other like-minded people. This has led to  a happy medium between home and work.

Sometimes curing office doldrums is simply about a temporary change of scenery, whether that’s in a coffee shop, a co-working space or even a park bench. (Link)

Over the last couple of decades there has been a shift in the way people work and learn, breaking down barriers, enabling choice and recognising that ownership of time space and very work itself is a huge motivating factor. The term ‘third place’  was coined by Ray Oldenburg an urban sociologist. In his book The Great Good Place he writes about the importance of informal public gathering spaces. “Third places” are essential to community vitality.

The $8bn Green Square project in inner Sydney is an urban development will eventually be the home for more than 40,000 people by 2030.  A young architectural team came up with the winning plan for the library at Green Square:

Artist impression 1

Artist impression 2

The below-ground vision will include garden storytelling, rolling hills and a sunken garden for reading and relaxing. It features an amphitheatre, water play area and music rooms where residents can practise on their instruments without disturbing neighbours.

Did anyone mention books?

Today, the library is a third place where people come to meet, read, work and belong. The word ‘library’ was once only synonymous with the word ‘book’. Now it is a ‘place’. The architects described this library as the ‘community living room’, a third place where people can be comfortable and productive at the same time. The library that feels like home.

The Hub ”Where change goes to work”  is a non-profit communal movement across the globe that is recreating the work environment.

The Hub

HUBs are uniquely designed spaces that provide a creative environment as well as a professional infrastructure to work, meet, learn and connect. Individuals rent spaces to work with other  entrepreneurs or project space with their team. The spaces are comfortable, with a variety of furnishings, a cafe and a kitchen.

We believe physical spaces are key to our impact  - for work, collaboration, inspiration, community, vibrant spaces, tools, connection, innovation. Why work from home when you can co-locate with other like-minded people at The Hub?

Slide14Slide16

Another example of the third space is The Design Factory at Aalto University in Helsinki. This is a cross-disciplinary project space furnished in the same way as the hub, catering for different ways of working and placing shipping containers to create a variety of working areas – spaces within spaces.

Slide19

Importantly, the kitchen provides a focal point and an opportunity for “planned coincidences”. It houses the only coffee machine in the building, so people must come to the kitchen to connect.

Design Factory

So what happens when school feels like home?

For generations, educationally, we’ve been polishing the chrome on the Holden Kingswood (or Edsel or Cortina), without seeing the need to reinvent in the hybrid-vehicle era. For generations the physical place of school has remained the same, when all around people are working and learning in markedly different ways. Think about the hospital/medical services, the way we communicate, how we access music and purchase goods – yet there is a constancy to the way schools look – for decades.

Slide23

The physical environment does matter. This was identified by a pilot study by the University of Salford and architects, Nightingale Associates. This study  found that the classroom environment can affect a child’s academic progress over a year by as much as 25%.

 Slide26  GM23

Schools we have visited in Scandinavia, and in particular Denmark and Sweden,  the design definitely feels like home. There are communal living rooms with soft furnishings and kitchens within the learning space, especially for primary and middle years.

There are, of course, other spaces for instructional sessions, but there were no rigid rows, but coworking tables. These spaces are generally kept small, because they aren’t spaces to stay in all day.

Slide29

I witnessed a ‘school feels like home’ moment last year.  

The teacher brought the young boy over to the kitchen, took a plate, put some crackers with cheese together for him and then sat at the ‘kitchen table’ to work with him on his maths problems.

Slide30

Kunskapsskolan is a system of more than 30 free schools across Sweden. The schools have a specific replicable design that is evident at each site.

Slide34

 

A new Kunskapsskolan school is not built on fresh greenfield site, but a disused factory, warehouse, shop or hospital that can accommodate the design and way of working – one characterised by light, visibility and flexibility.

Slide33

Every space is a learning space.

The starting point for design is to think of the entire space available as a potential learning area, not defaulting to “dividing space into static classrooms with connecting corridors”

Most areas have multiple functions …the cafeteria doubles up as a space for collaboration.

Visitors to Kunskapsskolan often remark that our schools look more like the site of a modern, creative knowledge industry, rather than a traditional school.

How do we make school feel like home? 

Slide37

Test every assumption about school - just because we have always have classrooms, desks, chairs and a teacher at the front, it doesn’t mean they are the necessary elements.

Identify what is actually necessary – begin with the end in mind.

Observe the times – how do your students connect, learn and communicate?

Ditch those things that don’t matter any more – how much of what we do is due to what has always been done?

Focus on relationships – at all levels, and at every nexus.

…And be brave.

@anneknock

 


Will this be in the test, My Pyne? Old school is not way to go #weneedvision

Posted on by
2

Christopher Pyne is the Australian Education Minister in-waiting, with an election due in September this year. We have been waiting for a clear vision for the students in our nation and are yet to receive it. The current government hasn’t delivered. This piece appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald this week.

Old School is way to go, says Pyne (emphasis mine – see below)

Child-centred learning should be abandoned for a return to more explicit instruction driven by teachers, the Liberal education spokesman, Christopher Pyne, says.

Mr Pyne on Wednesday advocated ”more practical teaching methods based on more didactic teaching methods, more traditional methods rather than the child-centred learning that has dominated the system for the past 20, 30 or 40 years’‘.

”In other words, mounting evidence suggests that primary school children or students with particular types of disadvantage would be better off being taught this way,” he said. ”Unfortunately this research has been ignored by most teacher training and in many instances attempts to return to explicit instruction pedagogy have been blocked by state education departments.”

Dear Mr Pyne,

The world has changed significantly from when I was at school. I’m not sure who’s advising you, so maybe I can help. In 2013 it is not feasible to look to the so-called good old days and say, “it didn’t do me any harm”. Rather than appeal to the voting public (parents) with seemingly reassuring words about getting back to the past, we need an Education Minister who can look forward and see the amazing opportunities our children have before them.

I’m sure as a student you knuckled down and worked hard to get where you are today. But learning is personal, and I wonder if there were peers in your classes who were like a ‘fish out of water’ at your school.

Today I want an education system where there are no more of these ‘fishes’ at school, that we are able to personalise the learning for the success of all students – with a curriculum that is deep, engaging, rigorous and purposeful. Not a policy that will just win votes.

In no other profession do we yearn for the past. For those of us over 40, think back to our childhood. Would we want to go back to the way it was for a visit to the dentist or the hospital? I wouldn’t. Similarly, the world of education and learning has significantly shifted and we are looking to the leaders, like yourself, as alternate Education Minister, not to turn back the clock based on your own experience, but gain a greater understanding of the world we are preparing our young people for, especially the opportunities that technology bring.

Just to ge things straight

Child-centred learning that has dominated the system for the past 20, 30 or 40 years This term was used when I started my career in education 30 years ago. In 1979 I started my pre-service teacher education and it seemed that in the right conditions learning would happen, as if by osmosis.

Rather, I think today forward thinking educators would say that the curriculum needs to be learner-driven, not putting the student in charge of the content, but the teacher. ‘Learner-driven’ is more about the students as engaged and passionate learners, who actively pursue learning as a lifelong endeavour.

Return to more explicit instruction, driven by teachers. Now I’m really confused. We now know that quality teachers are more important than ever. I see many passionate teachers that are taking responsibility for the ‘stickiness’ of their students’ learning. Back-in-the-day it was a simple blame game – if students didn’t learn it was their fault or problem, with associated punishment. I am impressed with the education professionals in my world who are constantly assessing students and evaluating their own practice, thus seeking to ensure that they provide the conditions for students to learn.

This may also include instructional teaching, as part of the tool kit, but this can be done in a variety of ways that frees up the teacher from the one-to-many approach, allowing more quality time with students.

Mounting evidence suggests that primary school children or students with particular types of disadvantage would be better off being taught this way. Does this mean that because these students require a particular approach, then there needs to be a blanket rule for all students? There is no one size fits all education. Let’s aim to give all students the approach they need to realise their potential and achieve success in life.

In many instances attempts to return to explicit instruction pedagogy have been blocked by state education departments. I can only speak from the NSW perspective, perhaps one of the most prescriptive curriculum jurisdictions across Australia. I am very familiar with the requirements for the registration and accreditation of schools and I am not aware of any such blockage. The breadth of outcomes to be met in NSW actually lends itself to explicit instruction, as this is the only way that many teachers feel they can meet the statutory requirements.

I am currently reading social researcher, Hugh Mackay’s book, What makes us tick? The ten desires that drive us. In the chapter, ‘The Desire to be Taken Seriously’, Mackay talks about the need to focus on intrinsic motivation. Rewards and punishments come from extrinsic sources, says Mackay, then we focus on control. This is very evident in school:

Students who become obsessed by the marks they are getting tend to be less engaged learners – in the richest sense of ‘learning’ – than those who are not driven by the extrinsic reward of marks. Marks become the goal. Learning, questioning, exploring ideas, making mistakes – all the hallmarks of an engaged student – tend to diminish in the pursuit of rewards.

In one secondary school famous for high marks achieved by its students, teachers reported that the students’ focus on marks was distorting their approach to learning: ‘Will this be in the exam?’ students would ask, whenever a teacher introduced a topic or mentioned a book worth reading. The clear implication was that if there were no marks in it the students wouldn’t bother paying attention to it.

I don’t know about you, but I would like to provide the conditions for rich and engaged learners. I definitely don’t want these young people to face school as I experienced it.

Be the change, Mr Pyne, if you become the new school Education Minister for Australia

PS… Please don’t take counsel from Mr Gove. Instead, watch the TED talks by Sir Ken Robinson and Sugata Mitra.

We live by different rules. One woman’s attempt at navigating them (um, that would be me)

Posted on by
Reply

An interesting Twitter exchange developed. I made an unusual comment, as I don’t normally jump into the political discourse. Our female Prime Minister announced the date of the election, with an unprecedented eight month lead in. I tweeted:

“in the 2010 election the PM wore pearls (credibility) and is wearing glasses (this time I mean business)”

The question came back from a person in my feed, “Do we talk about male politicians and what they are wearing as a mark of business or not?” A valid point, to which I added, “We really live by different rules”

A few others leapt into the discussion about comments made about other politicians (from the other side). I also recalled reading that in the 2012 US election campaign, Mitt Romney always had his shirt sleeves rolled up “ready to get working” was the message it sent.

In 2012 a well-known international feminist commentator and writer on Q&A, said about our PM “What I want her to do is get rid of those bloody jackets.”  If the sisterhood can’t seem to get it right, what hope is there?

My Kitchen Rules is a cooking competition by couples, who may be spouses, family members and friends. They are seeking to outdo one another and impress the judges.

Who knows what the audition process was looking for and then what was actually said across the evening of filming, but the editing guidelines seem to say,

“portray the women, especially the all-female pairs, as critical with a quick and cutting mouth. That will definitely get the viewers.”

I am so disgusted by the promos, that I won’t watch the program. But millions are.

We live by different rules. Once we can accept that, work with it.

So as a woman who is seeking to make a mark on the world how do I navigate this? A few things to accept:

  • My public comments are (and should be) under scrutiny.
  • The sisterhood won’t necessarily back us up.
  • The media prefer to present women in ways that pit us against one another (while the men passively observe)

We are all wired differently. When my children were small I wasn’t the stay-at-home-mum-type and went back to work fairly quickly and now, in my early 50s I enjoy work and am not looking toward retirement, as I find work to be energizing and engaging.

Again, part of me wants to clarify: there’s nothing wrong with being a stay-at-home-mum nor is there anything wrong with wanting to retire and play golf (or whatever they do). But, I don’t actually need to clarify, because when I talk about what’s good for me, I’m not criticising another.

What are my rules?

  • Be comfortable with who I am, not other people’s expectations of who I should be
  • Equally, be respectful, don’t put my expectations onto others, allow them to be themselves
  • Live to serve and encourage others, especially with my words
  • Know enough about what’s happening in the world, including sport, to communicate and engage with a broad range of people
  • Go with my strengths and identify (and fill) areas where I need help
  • Find creative outlets that fit me
  • Find a clothing style that makes me feel positive about myself
  • Understand the diversity of maleness
  • My opinion is an opinion, not what another person should or must do
  • Listen more and talk less

15 of my 17 years teaching were in boys’ schools and my husband and I have raised two sons. I think that this baptism into the male-world has helped me to navigate it relatively effectively, yet far from perfectly. I quickly learnt that I just need to say something once and then I need to give time to think about it. I have learnt a lot from the young boys I taught, and my husband and sons.

My desire is that I want to see women in places of leadership and influence in the breadth of spheres open to them. But our expectations need to be real. Considering ‘life’s big moments’, our career growth can be both incremental and successful, with the necessary pauses. Most importantly, relationships and especially those closest take priority.

We live by different rules. Work yours out.

@anneknock

Dogfooding: Would you send your own kids to your school?

Posted on by
6

Dogfooding…
It’s a curious term that I came across in the business section of my newspaper this morning. In business ‘eating your own dogfood’ refers to the scenario in which a company uses it’s own product to demonstrate its quality and capabilities.

Of course, there are many extenuating circumstances in the decisions we make for our own children (present company included) – but in principle, is your school the kind of school that you would like your own children to attend? When I had my own sons at school with me it hit my hip-pocket. Not so much in the cost of fees, but the regular question  as I crossed the playground… “Mum, can I have some money?”

In business, and in particular for business leaders, this speaks of corporate loyalty. The article makes reference to a question put to Melinda Gates about i-devices, to which she answered, “The wealth from our family came from Microsoft, so why would I invest in the competitor?”.

As a child I used to wonder if the employees from a TV channel were only allowed to watch their own station at home.

The former chief executive of Tesco, Sir Terry Leahy, recently admitted on radio that his zeal for Britain’s biggest supermarket stretched to the contents of the family’s fridge. Asked if his wife Alison had ever shopped at rival Waitrose, he said: “Occasionally, but I would complain so much that she wouldn’t bother.”

He even bribed his kids to inform if his wife popped into Waitrose (the competitor). You can’t say the man’s not passionate about his supermarkets.

While this sounds a little extreme,  the principle remains, would you send your own kids to your school? Great school leaders would, almost with a parent-heart, want to create a learning community within which their own children would thrive.

So hypothetically, and even if you don’t have your own kids, how would your school stack up as first choice for your family?

Is the learning personalised so that your children would be engaged and stimulated?

Are there high quality relationships that would make your children feel part of a community?

Would the professional practice provide the best quality of education you would want for your kids?

Would they recognise you as the person at home?

I’m sure that there are other questions, but it comes down to passion for your school, and making it the best, so that even your kids would love it and thrive there.

So how passionate are you?

@anneknock

The 21st Century Leader engages the head, heart & hands

Posted on by
Reply

Did you notice message projected by Mitt Romney in the media leading up to the US Presidential Election?

Whether he was making a speech or meeting the people, his sleeves were almost always rolled up. This wasn’t necessarily because he was hot or uncomfortable, but he wanted to give the impression that “Mitt is a hands-on leader, ready for action”.

How do you engage with your people?

The 21st Century leader needs to be people-oriented, first and foremost, with the ability to know how and when to engage people with their head, heart and hands, the leader requires the right mix. Great leaders know that all three have to be ever-present, but it different strengths. This mix depends on the context, the people, the past and the future.

We each seem lean toward one attribute over the others:

Head – The knowledgeable leader uses facts and data

Heart – The empathic leader reads emotions and can make connections

Hands – The hands-on leader is action-oriented.

However to lead we each need to acquire the skills to be able to operate across domains, and gain the instinct to know which one to employ, when and with whom. Different circumstances requires us to lead in different ways.

HEAD + Heart + Hands

When you need it: Amidst the chaos, highly emotive situations require a clear head to look at the facts and make a path using an objective viewpoint.

Not so much: Not every situation is black and white. You may actually know the facts and the most straightforward approach, but sometimes the best course of action isn’t the most direct route from A to B and people need to make their own way.

Head + HEART + Hands

When you need it: High change environments can be stressful this is where a stronger heart-orientation is required and an empathic approach helps the process. It doesn’t mean we need to shrink back from the course of change, just ensure that people’s uncertainties are heard.

Not so much: We can never truly take the Heart out of any equation, however, there are times when it is important to de-emphasise the emotions. This often occurs when people have difficulty seeing the reality in a situation.

Head + Heart + HANDS

When you need it: Building teams and connections, especially when the context is new to everyone. A team will feel connected to the leader when they know that he or she has been in the trenches alongside them.

Not so much: The most extreme is micro-managing. It disempowers people when the leader takes on too much of the day-to-day work. Learn how to let go and trust.

@anneknock