The week three HERS training was focused on writing performance reviews. As I sat in this meeting, I thought about all the social-emotional learning progress reports, and noted documentation of behavioral concerns I had to keep as a special education teacher. The goal in sharing performance concerns in writing is to understand the root of poor performance, just like the goal of understanding behavior is understanding “why” (the root) it is happening. All behavior is communication, and since performance can be seen as a behavior—this, too, is communication.
 I learned last week that there are four reasons that performance can be weak. They are:

1. I don’t know how to…
2. I don’t have the skills/resources...
3. I don’t want to…
4. I am unwell…

As I learned about each of these reasons, I found myself thinking there are also four reasons behaviors occur and tried to find the correlation. The reasons behaviors occur are: escape/avoidance, wanting to gain something tangible, attention, and sensory needs.
​
In special education, we often see escape/avoidance activity when a ‘task’ is too hard for a student or at their frustration level. The idea of avoidance couples with the first reason for poor performance (“I don’t know how to…”). When people don’t know how to do a task or a task is too complicated, it makes sense that they avoid it, just like students who reach frustration levels with tasks want to avoid them.

When students want access to a particular toy or electronic and are either denied this or told to wait, sometimes we see externalizing behaviors as the student seeks access to this item. This could couple with the second reason an employee’s performance could be weak (not having access to resources or being trained to develop a particular skill). If resources are limited, and it is causing someone not to be able to do their job, then my job as a leader is to provide the resources or training, and if this can’t be done, perhaps the job description needs to change.

In my head, I am correlating the “I don’t want to” behavior with attention seeking. Attention-seeking behavior happens when a student is not engaged in their work. This could be because the work is not interesting, or it could be because there is too much going on in someone’s life outside of school that they can not attend to the “ask” in front of them. Regarding how this relates to leading employees, I will not be able to change job descriptions but may be able to leverage individuals’ talents so they feel more interested in their job. As a leader, I will not be able to shape someone’s attitude or do more than be sensitive to someone’s life outside of work.

The last reason someone may not perform is health-related. I cannot decide if someone can or cannot do their job because of health and need to rely on human resources and the medical profession for this. I linked this with behavior that is sensory-seeking or avoiding because individuals that display behaviors for sensory reasons also often have medical documentation supporting this. (This could be a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, sensory processing disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, malnutrition, etc.)

This HERS training had me think of some skills I used as a special educator and how these “new” leadership skills and decisions I am learning about relate to concepts/constructs I already have. I focused solely on how the “roots of poor performance” link to my knowledge of “all behavior is a form of communication”, but last week’s topic related in other ways too: how progress report writing and performance evaluation writing are similar, how to respond to negative feedback from stakeholders about evaluation write-ups (whether from a student or parent in schools, or an employee in the workforce), and how to document problems so there are records of infractions and lack of performance. Data helps make decisions in individualized educational program (IEP) meetings, and data needs to be used to make decisions about an employee’s performance. 

Week three of the HERS training series focused on different conflict styles and when some styles may work better than others. The goal in any conflict is to get interest convergence. This is achieved differently based on the problem presented, a person’s preferred conflict style, and the person’s ability to adapt to different styles. We had to take a quiz before class, and in that, I learned the ranking of my conflict styles is: compromiser, problem-solver, accommodator, avoider, and then a competitor.
​
Before this year, I would have told you I avoid conflict at all costs. As I participated in this session, however, I thought more about this, and I don’t avoid all conflict at all costs—instead, I avoid conflict that I don’t think will productively move anywhere. Each decision I need to make ultimately involves some conflict, and if I avoided it altogether, I would not be able to do my job.

This HERs training coupled nicely with the Chronicle in Higher Education Conflict training on conflict that I participated in this past January. In both workshops I learned that approaches to conflict depend on if healthy conflict (productive disagreements that allow for the sharing of ideas—with the goal of moving people and organizations forward) or high conflict (where forward progress ceases to happen due to binary thinking, emotional responses, and a failure to collaborate) exists. High-conflict situations require conflict avoidance until rational, intellectual brains can share ideas. If the rational brain can’t happen in appropriate time frames and action needs to be taken, then authority and competitive conflict styles may need to be used.

As a leader, the goal is never to avoid or not address conflict but to do so strategically. This starts with being open to listening to each person’s perspective and hearing what the actual problem is. If, as a leader, I can’t discern or am unclear about the problem, I should never assume and instead explicitly ask, “What is the problem?” Defining the conflict then becomes the responsibility of the person sharing it. As people bring problems to me and I encounter problems, I should also always be asking, “Is this a problem I need to solve, or can I empower others to solve this?”

Asking these questions is important to me because my conflict preferences are compromising and problem-solving, and jumping the gun to solve and find solutions may be robbing people of developing skills to solve conflicts on their own. It may also not be empowering and helping others develop leadership skills around conflict management they will need to move forward in their careers. One of the goals I want to work on as I move into this new leadership role is to help others feel empowered. The other goal I have spoken about in a previous post is around making sure people feel appreciated. Appreciation and empowerment of faculty and staff is a step toward progressing the organization forward.  

The second HERS Leadership training took place this last week, and the topic was the title of this blog post (Managing Up, Down and All Around). I also had my first shadowing days to understand my new role. Because of this shadowing, I now have an idea about some concrete tasks that I will be asked to carry out in this new role, and I feel confident I can handle these tasks (licensure requirement waivers, scheduling, student-at-risk meetings, and some direct supervision and working with staff). I was also introduced to a Project Log so I can track the work I do and how it fits directly into the job description (once that is created). This tracker can be used to note how much of my day-to-day is spent on various portions of the job description or fall into the ambiguous “duties as assigned” category. I think using such a tool will provide data for me to share how my days are spent and will allow me to have conversations about prioritizing tasks.
​
One of the topics in the HERS leadership training this past week was the importance of always evaluating if and how tasks fit into one’s job description.  This is important so lanes are clearly defined, job roles and responsibilities are understood, and the organization’s talents and capacity can be built. We discussed how it is good to help out every now and then in other areas to help the health of an organization but to truly build a strong organization that does not cause people to burn out, checks need to be done regarding one’s role and the tasks they are trying to do. I think the university I work as still trying to clearly define roles and responsibilities and create a shared understanding of the tasks that may come with different roles. We are taking initial steps in operationalizing roles and processes so the larger community understands these.

The culture at the university, up until this point, has relied on people and relationships rather than clearly defined duties to accomplish things. From a leadership framing, it has operated more from a human-resource lens rather than a structural lens. Changing this framing is changing culture because people were so used to the way things were/operated, and some have come on board while others have been more resistant. I think because the structural lens has not been utilized before, there is a heavy emphasis on this lens now, but I don’t think it is best to abandon all portions of the human-resource lens. Can a shift be made to keep some of these aspects intact? Can the other leadership lenses (symbolic and political) also be built up simultaneously? I ask this because successful organizations use all four lenses and see the perspectives of each lens as they think about, plan, and execute decisions.

The topic of this week’s HERs training was Managing Up, Down and Around, and I think structurally we can manage our time and projects. The human-resource lens, however, needs to be in play as we lead people. After all, as leaders, we manage projects and we lead people—and to do this justly we need to be human and have relationships. 

The first session of the Aspiring Administrators Bootcamp training took place last week. It was a two-hour online training that went by fairly quickly. One key takeaway from this session included how words are important. For example, you lead people and you manage projects. This is important because even the small shift in words from “manage” to “lead” shows a human side to how I am thinking of the leadership role. This small shift allows me to lead by empowering people and not dictating what to do.
​
One of the first activities we did asked us to use Simon Sinek’s leadership ‘what, how, and why” to craft our leadership identity. My response to this activity was, “I have risen to leadership in education because I believe all students should have equitable learning experiences. I want to lead to make this possible, and I want to do so with integrity. This may require confidently standing up for this and establishing boundaries.” Leading with integrity collaborating with others around a shared, keeping students’ well-being at the center of all decisions, and being open and transparent about decisions

I also learned that there are correct times to communicate decisions and potential pathways forward and that communicating too early can cause more harm than good. A leader does not share if they do not have enough details about a problem to concretely define it so that a solution can be put on the table. Sharing too early, before all the details are concrete, can cause more hysteria than productivity in a team—raising anxiety because of the ambiguous unknown.

When a leader comes up with a potential solution and then seeks other possible solutions from their team, they empower and teach their team to work to fix a problem. This produces shared leadership that celebrates everyone’s talents and communicates the message that we all have something to contribute to help the organization and our unit in the organization improve on the mission--producing a student-centered culture. It also helps that people will support what they help to create—and this is why everyone’s involvement should be a part of every big decision! As a leader, you lead people towards a collective goal, like creating a student-centered culture, and manage the projects that align with this goal.

I have been doing someone leading on external evaluation review teams since the beginning of this academic year, September 2022. Some of this work has been done remotely and some has been done in-person. As I enter the new role at my university on July first, I was contemplating how much of the leadership I have been doing in evaluation work will transfer over to this new role.
When I am a lead on an external review team, my job is to know what all team members skill sets are and who they are as people to help build the most productive and collaborative team. Knowing each person’s background, I can assign specific documents and assignments to them based on how I believe they will best contribute to our end goal, a thorough evaluation where we can identify a teacher preparation programs strengths and can make recommendations for them to improve. I think that this portion of leadership, will translate well in my new role at Salem—as I see direct links between the Department of Education’s evaluation we received, and how that is driving changes, and the important role and skill set faculty and staff have in addressing these changes. As faculty, I know the curriculum which impacts student’s content and pedagogical knowledge. As faculty, I have also served in some roles that staff serve—advising (on a much smaller scale), field supervisor training and some jobs of the field office and working with specific community initiative programs in the school (the Center for Inclusive Scholars). I have served in a number of roles so understand each role’s function and I think this could be valuable in my new leadership role—just like knowing the background of each team member in an evaluation leads to collaborative success on the evaluation team.
​
One other major aspect of leading an external evaluation review team is keeping the program informed on the findings, talking leadership through the findings before they are made public (to the whole program), and developing a relationship with leadership so that they understand the credibility of the findings and have a clear pathway forward towards continuous improvement. I think this constant communication aspect of leadership is something people feel is missing from the current organizational structure in our school and in the university. This is the portion of leading an external evaluation review that takes the most out of me, but I know the importance of it. I think this will also be the portion of my new role that will take the most out of me—but it is the part that actually gets people to feel valued and like they know what the pathway forwards is and what is going on.

The lead is distinctly different that the other reviewers on the team because they are the person providing direct feedback in oral and written form once all of the activities for the week have concluded. The lead in the final review meeting speaks on behalf of all the reviewers to deliver the final review based on where the preponderance of evidence resides. This final oral debrief is accompanied by a finalized written blueprint of the findings and pathway forward within a month of the review. I think this aspect of leading may play into my new role as I become a figurehead for the School of Education, much like I represent the reviewers in an evaluation. I think because I have been faculty for so long, I may serve to some as a figurehead for faculty voice in administration decisions, but I know I will also may be seen as being on the “dark-side” and therefore “other.”  This new role, however, will require me to clearly articulate and provide a well written and communicated blue-print that is a pathway forward for the School of Education in the coming years.

I think there are some similarities between the leading I have been doing externally and what I am being tasked to lead internally. I think I am ready to move beyond program-level and department-level leadership, and it’s through the external review leadership that I can see this big picture. I’m not very open about what I have been doing as a consultant outside of my ‘day’ job, and to the level I have been doing this work. I think one of the mistakes I made is not letting others know about my accomplishments, and the work projects and ‘asks’ I have had at a national level. I struggle with how to do this, remain humble, and not put this behavior out as what everyone needs to achieve (or the ‘norm’) knowing others work-life balance needs are all individually different. 

This week it was officially announced that I accepted an Assistant Dean position, and this position will begin on July 1st. I think there are benefits to a faculty member at a university rising up to leadership, but I am also not naïve and I know there is probably a fair amount of skepticism from my colleagues. I typically am good about “staying in my lane”, putting my head down, and getting work accomplished. This will serve me well and my ability to compartmentalize will most likely be an asset in this new role.
​
Even knowing this, I want to approach this role proactively, and although some are not celebrating that it is me who was appointed, they can celebrate that a faculty member was asked to assist in leading. I think this sentiment starts with acknowledgment, being open to suggestions, hearing everyone’s voice, and elevating these. I am thinking about doing this for faculty and staff through a small anonymous survey to hear their current state of thinking and impressions (both good and bad) of the organization. I would like to start with this and once I have my steep learning curve (at the end of my first semester), ask for additional feedback in hopes of creating a culture of open sharing where people can feel they can give constructive feedback that leads to improvement—improvement in both the organization and in my own leadership development.

Not knowing all that role encompasses yet, I can’t construct this current opinion/suggestion gathering based on the job description or role. I can, however, construct it more generally to seek feedback about their ‘fit’ in the organization and how they would drive change. My thoughts are to provide sentence stems (thank you, special education teacher training) for individuals to complete the statement. Right now, I’m thinking my sentence stems are:

One small operational change the MSOE could make that would make my work life easier is…
I want to know more from the Dean’s Office about…
Communication about important initiatives and/or changes would be better if…
I would feel more appreciated if…
I think the students would be more satisfied with their experience if…
The best thing about my job is…

I think these sentence stems would allow individuals an opportunity to weigh in on operations, communications, and what they value about their job. These statements could also be used to drive improvements in communication and make people feel valued—because, as the Five Love Languages has noted people receive messages of appreciation in different ways. The announcement was made on Monday so I think I should start collecting information this week to start thinking about suggestions and a roadmap for improvement. I know the job does not officially begin until July 1st, but part of my transition into this role can begin earlier. 

I think as a leader remembering where you came from and the road to where you are now is important. I come from a blue-collar family with a strong work ethic and belief in education, effort, and respecting everyone. When I started in education, I started at what some would say is an entry-level or ground-level position as a para-professional. I have worked my way up to working at the university as a professor and partial administrator. I state this because I am learning about the human resource perspective on leading organizations—and this framework is one I find comfort in, maybe because I’ve always had to work my way up in organizations or maybe because it makes all work seem more humanizing and brings capitalizes on respect.
​
I value others’ thoughts and believe everyone has something to bring to the table, and we can all learn from each other. Knowing people’s aspirations and finding ways to encourage and promote these aspirations leads to a more engaged and richer organization. Often when finances are a struggle, this level of support is the first thing that declines, and when layoffs need to happen due to financial constraints, it continues to decline. When leaders do not invest in people, they can become disengaged and apathetic and could ultimately just check out mentally or physically leave a university.

The pandemic exacerbated people feeling under-appreciated and, in turn, left more workers disengaged.  The job of a leader at this time would seem to be to make people’s contributions to the organization noticed and attempt to reengage culture. Are there ways to do this while many workers want to remain remote? Would requiring in-person contact reestablish culture, or would it drive people further away? Before asking about in-person culture building, should acknowledgment come from personal conversations and departmental praise? I think each individual person wishes and requires something slightly different in their work environment to feel connected, but feeling appreciated is needed regardless of how much in-person or human contact one requires.

I have heard that the Dean’s newsletter should be reinstituted because this was a way to get praise across the school. Previously, it was stated that not many people paid attention to or read this newsletter—but what people said pre-pandemic I don’t think should be touted as gospel post-pandemic. I think this is a small way to begin to acknowledge people’s talents and show appreciation for the work being done. I know this is too big a lift for some, but maybe I can take this on as work to do—in starting to build the culture portion of leadership that I wrote about in my last blog post. Culture takes time to develop, and small actions start to add up to shape the organization. I think this can be one small starting point. Knowing what everyone is doing also keeps leaders grounded in “where they came from” and their path to their current position. I also think it helps to know this to encourage and promote aspirations in all employees. 

I spent my free time this week reading Marjorie Hass’ A Leadership Guide for Women in Higher Education. The book brought up some of what I am worried about in terms of influence and people expecting women to behave in specific interpersonal ways. One of the key takeaways from the book is how leadership can be thought of as a triangle—with its sides identified as business operations, culture, and mission. I would put the mission at the base of the triangle as the foundation for the other two to develop, but I don’t know that all the leaders I know would. I also think that in the organization I am in right now, culture does not get much attention and is often overlooked, or at least not as much time and development is placed on this. I wrote in my last post about where my higher education leadership niche could be—and developing culture was my line of thinking there, and focusing on this could create a more uniform triangle and stronger leadership.
​
Throughout the book, there were pictures of this triangle, and in all the pictures, an equilateral triangle was seen. I wonder if the goal is equal time and energy spent in all three domains (mission, business, and culture), if organizations go through times where a scale triangle is the ‘norm’, or even if it’s not just timing, but the organization looks for leadership to emphasize one domain over the others. Is this dependent on an organization’s purpose? For example, in higher education, should the goal be an equilateral triangle, but say in an e-commerce organization, the goal is to focus more on business?  This line of thinking, had me purchase the newer version of Boleman and Deal’s Reframing Organization: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. I read the 4th edition of this book when I was pursuing my doctoral degree. The 4th edition was written in 2008, and this newest version was written in 2021, so it considers how the pandemic affected organizations, and just general changes society has had in the last decade. I am only two chapters into the book thus far, and it’s a good reread for me, as I think about leadership a little differently.

I am immersing myself in leadership literature now as I think about how to lead best. Sometimes analyzing information about how to lead, however, may make me question my action steps and next move. I am someone that likes to process before responding and do this to simply steer away from solely reacting to information. If my goal is to work on culture, I think responding in appropriate time frames is important because I have seen reactive decisions ruffle feathers and not be openly accepted. If the mission is the foundational common ground between all individuals within an organization, then this should be leaned on to construct culture. Maybe this is the best way to influence and inspire people as a leader. 

This week I have spent a good amount of time thinking about my vision and how my vision fits into the work I do. My vision is to ensure that all teachers are trained to give every student an individualized and high-quality learning experience that allows them to continually make progress in the curriculum, feel socially connected, and contribute in a meaningful way to society. Right now, as graduate chair, a good portion of my work seems to be centered on creating systems and compliance checks for the state. I do a little on addressing quality when I evaluate teaching and when I examine supervision practices—but this is limited due to the main focal point of the school-turn-around being the organizational structure. I would like to work more with the faculty around the curriculum and with social connections.
​
I think feeling socially connected at the university is an area that needs attention. When I first began working at my current university, all stakeholders at the university took the campus climate survey. These survey results indicated that the climate needed to improve, and there was much work needed to do this. Some schools within the university conducted their own school climate surveys, and the results in the School of Education mimicked the larger campus survey. Many thought what would follow would be some shifts and some work to address these surveys—but we are over eight years later, and little has been done—at least not enough to trickle down, allowing faculty and staff to acknowledge and call attention to it explicitly.

In fact, if we were to do another campus climate survey in this post-COVID year, I think the university and even specific schools within the university would have poorer results than the first time these surveys were taken 8 years ago. I say this because as I read Gina Garcia’s Becoming Hispanic Serving Institutions: Opportunities for Colleges and Universities (for the university-sponsored HSI reading group), page 30 specifically calls out how campus climate which provides individuals a sense of belonging that leads to desirable outcomes (such as retention, persistence, and graduation) needs to be focused on. As I grow into leadership, maybe working on climate and building connections can be my niche and the largest thing I can contribute.

I think social connections are important to learning and growth in general, but I am often the quietest person in a room, so most would not have me targeted as the person leading such an effort. Could I do this, and do I have the skill set to do this work? I have a background in K-12, working with populations that struggle socially and providing authentic opportunities to connect—but could this background be built upon and scaled up to address an entire university’s needs and overall climate? I think my job as a leader is to see how this is approached in other universities or even companies with “healthy, productive, and positive climates” and see what initiatives, practices, and day-to-day ways of operating are transferable.

This right now seems like the most important move to make at the university in terms of leadership based on what I am hearing and seeing. I can also have this connect directly to my vision because I believe that higher-quality learning experiences happen in positive, constructive, growing environments than they do in climates that are negative. A sense of belonging and feeling socially connected are also needed for large-scale high-quality outcomes. If the university I work at is hoping to become a Hispanic-Serving Institution, I think we need more work on the current climate, so everyone feels welcome and feels they have the bandwidth to provide a positive culturally, linguistically, and racially connected campus and climate that Garcia calls for in her book. 

I bought my husband a subscription to Master Class for Christmas, and I have found myself watching and listening to the subscription more than he does. This week I have been invested in the lessons Coach K (the long-time Duke basketball coach) has on leadership. Throughout Coach K’s learning series, he breaks down traits of being a leader and applies them to the game of basketball and then extends these traits to the business world.

Today’s early morning fifteen-minute lesson was on how leaders must be trusted to lead effectively and how vulnerability can contribute to building trust. I think there are some parts of imposter syndrome when a new role begins that can be shared openly as the adjustment happens, but I think there is a delicate balance between this vulnerability and how one does this, so they do not self-sabotage and cause others to lose trust in them. It’s finding this balance that becomes the art of leadership. Many new processes within our school are being put into place as “the plane is flying” if I, as a leader, question my ability to implement all the changes, then trust in my leadership will go to the wayside. If, however, I have a confidence level with some processes, I need to lead with these, and then share that there are some questions I have about other operations and vocally share these questions. I think this is trust and vulnerability applied to the actual leadership work, but I also think trust and vulnerability need to be shared about things other than the work.

As a leader, I believe, certain parts of being human and being yourself also need to be shared to build trust and empathy in a team. I think it can be beneficial to share little nuggets from one’s personal life so that others can see the leader as multi-dimensional. When a leader is seen as multi-dimensional, I think this helps others relate, and may, in turn, help future leaders believe they can aspire and work towards a leadership role. I do not think vulnerability should hinder one’s job performance, and vulnerability should be used as a crutch to play “a victim’s game.”  In other words, I don’t think someone’s imposter syndrome should cause inaction or skepticism in performance.

I, as a leader, must work through my imposter syndrome and perform despite it. For example, I worry about my ability to connect and build personal relationships with others; this is a vulnerability I have had my entire life—starting off in my early childhood years as selectively mute and known as “the girls who doesn’t talk” by my classmates (who called me this outwardly throughout my pre-K-grade 2 experience) and then through struggles with social anxiety. If I were playing a “victim’s game” with this trait, I would state this and then just push paper, make decisions in isolation, and essentially become a dictatorship. I do not think I lead this way, but I can acknowledge that this would be the easiest way for me to lead. Instead, I need to lead “the hard way” (for me), which is through consistently extending myself and building personal relationships. I work through this by building these relationships through one-on-one interactions centered on the work.

I am not a leader who will mesmerize an entire crowd of people, but I can get the work done through small everyday one-on-one or small group interactions. These one-on-one interactions force me to be vulnerable as I work through my imposter syndrome related to personal relationship building, and in turn, build trust with my team. Consistency in approaching leadership this way over time, builds trust as both my professional and personal vulnerabilities are shared in these interactions. It builds trust in my own abilities as I work through the imposter syndrome, and builds trust in my team as they get to know me on both a personal and professional level.