NextGeneration

Some of the most gratifying work I do is to prepare the next generation of school leaders for the worthy and challenging work of the principalship.  Serving as mentor and professor to a fair number of school leaders, I not only get to share with them what I have learned (both good and bad) in the dispatch of that work, but I also get to learn a lot FROM them.

I spent the whole day yesterday participating in the University of Texas at Austin Principalship Program Assessment Center.  Each February we put 20-30 aspiring school leaders through a rigorous set of tasks designed to discern if they have the potential and dispositions needed to serve as school principals in the 21st century, with all its complexity and ambiguity.

Through that process yesterday, I was able to work with about 50 of the finest educators in the state of Texas (about 20 of them former students of mine in the UT Austin Principalship Program, 6-8 of them colleagues of mine at UT Austin, and the rest being current principals, superintendents, and school administrators in Texas schools).  It was humbling to work among such an elite group of educators.

While the day was full of work and difficult decisions, it was also one of powerful resonance as we assessed and interacted with the next generation of school leaders.  What a great group of professionals to serve with in that process!  What a great crop of candidates who are itching to serve in the principalship, intent on ensuring the very brightest future for Texas.

The UT Austin mantra is this:  What starts here changes the world.

Indeed!  Feeling quite blessed to play a part in that process.

FoodSanity(10.0)

Once one becomes convinced that we really are what we eat, then we are faced with a bit of dilemma:  How do we decide what to put in our mouths?

According to Dr. Robert Lustig there are approximately 600,000 food items on American supermarket shelves, and he estimates that 80% of those items have had processed sugar (in some form or another) added to them.  Hmmm....  By my math that's about 480,000 food items that have sugar added.  Not to mention the other preservatives, additives, embellishments, and adhesives.  Wow!

So, if we are interested in escaping the Standard American Diet (S.A.D), how do we decide which food products to put in the shopping basket?

At the school I currently serve (Guthrie Common School District in Guthrie, Texas) we invited nutritionist Rachelle Atkinson to visit with our students, staff, and parents about health and nutrition last week.  RA did a remarkable job of providing a very simple guideline to use in food selection.  According to RA, the best starting point is to use two driving questions when deciding whether or not a food is most likely wholesome:

1. When I look at the item, is it obvious that it was grown in dirt?
2. If not, is the item from an animal that was fed from stuff that was growing in dirt?

The point is that the closer a food is to its naturally grown form, the better.  What a great benchmarking technique for food selection.  Of course, for us purists, there are some additional considerations (e.g., treated with herbicides? treated with pesticides? genetically modified? pasture fed? pasture finished? hormone free? antibiotic free?), but those two questions form a very cool and simple starting point for getting our food "right."  Interestingly, the foods that are most likely to be wholesome are generally found around the perimeter of the supermarket, not down the center isles.  

Nice guidelines, RA?

Inflection

In communications there is a convention called "inflection" which is the result of our stressing a particular syllable in a word, altering the cadence or rhythm of our speech, raising or lowering the pitch of our voice, emphasizing certain words or phrases.  Inflection is a nuanced technique designed to gain or refocus attention to the intended and/or underlying meaning of our words.

Those who lead others have another dimension of inflection that can be leveraged.  The way we direct our attention (or not), the things we choose to emphasize (or not), the behaviors we incentivize (or not), the folks we empower (or not) send powerful signals to others.  

Just as we can use words or the sound of our voice to communicate meaning, we also have the power to use non-verbal inflection to communicate meaning.  Those acts of omission and commission serve also to gain or refocus attention to the intended and underlying meaning of our actions/attention/behaviors.

In mathematics, an inflection point is that point on a continuous curve that represents a change of direction.  It is, in effect, the point at which the turning occurs.  We can use both verbal and non-verbal inflection to generate points of inflection, both in the behavior of individuals and in the behavior of the organization.  Some powerful possibilities exist here.

The frequently deployed alternative, of course, is to muddle along, sending unintentional and mushy signals, in thoughtless ways.  Since this approach requires the least thinking and work, it makes sense that it is the default setting for so many leaders.

However, for those aspire for more...  
(yes, that was an example of inflection.)

HowWeDoHarm

I recently read How We Do Harm: A Doctor Breaks Ranks About Being Sick in America by physician Otis Brawley (2011).  

OB scathingly indicts the American healthcare (sickcare?) system as we know it.  Dr. Brawley is not a fringe lunatic, either; he is a highly respected academic-physician and has impeccable credentials.  The concerns he raises come from a deep understanding of our healthcare system and its dysfunctional nature.  

Some of my big takeaways:

• Many (if not most) physicians are trained to treat symptoms, not discern and treat root causes.
• Americans spend 2.5 times as much on healthcare as we do on food.
• Many who get "caught" in the system suffer from a cascade of testing, analyses, diagnoses, and interventions, that may or may not be related to their initial complaint.
• The health care system has become more about making money for the physicians, the pharmaceutical companies, and the healthcare industry than it is about restoring our health.
• If you are suffering from some catastrophic illness/malady, the system will eventually bleed you dry (literally and figuratively), then kick you out (unless, of course, you can afford to pay out of your own pocket without end).
• The industry as a whole has forsaken the concept of "the benefit must outweigh the harm."

My favorite quote:  

"The system is not failing. It’s functioning exactly as designed. It’s designed to run up health-care costs. It’s about the greedy serving the gluttonous." (p. 280)  

This book was (another) real eye-opener for me.  Raised my level of wariness several notches (and I was already way up there on the lack-of-trust-in-the-system scale).  

BetterGetting

I know some absolutely fabulous...
Parents          Coaches          Bosses          Welders          Nurses          Leaders
           Referees         Administrators         Dancers          Physicians
Teachers          Cowboys          Speakers          Principals          Musicians

I also know some pretty good...
(repeat all the identifiers shown above).

The difference in fabulous and pretty good?
A relentless hunger to learn more, to get better, to sharpen their skills, to refine their craft.

Of the fabulous ones I know, none of them are driven by the dollars or notoriety that might come with getting better (though, in fact, those things often do come their way).  Nope.  They are intrinsically driven toward better getting.  It's almost as if the continuous improvement journey nourishes their souls.

One more thing I've noticed about that fabulous group:  They always seem more than willing to share their learning with others, somehow, some way.

Makes me wanna get better myself.

ImprovQBs&StrategicPlans

Making plans is essential to getting started.  We've all heard the old saw about how it's impossible to reach your destination if you don't know where you're going.  Of course!  We most certainly need to know where we're going and what it is we are trying to accomplish.  

The problem I've experienced with detailed and long-range strategic plans is that they rarely take into account the almost certain eventuality that they will get derailed somehow - 
by a change in the economy, 
by missed projections, 
by the weather,
by the departure of key personnel, 
by... (you can fill in the blank __________).

Two genres of artisans can inform us in this regard:

1) Improvisational comedians are masters at taking the "stem" or the "prompt" (in our discussion that would be the goal we are trying to achieve), then accepting the environment and stimuli as it comes.  They skillfully accept whatever is pitched to them and "blend" that array of variables toward the end in mind.  By craft, they discipline themselves to act and respond with a "yes, and..." mentality rather than a "but, we can't/won't/shouldn't..." kind of mindset.

2) Great football quarterbacks are also masters at adaptation.  Clearly, the goal for them (almost without exception) is to score.  They understand that a plan (in this analogy, it's the play that is called) is nothing more than a starting point, and that there are a myriad of forces (11 vicious defensive players being the most obvious) bent on derailing the plan.  However, those great quarterbacks have not only disciplined themselves to execute the original plan (i.e., play) but they have also meticulously trained themselves to look for the emerging opportunities when the plan begins to unravel (as it so often does).  

A commonality I see in both of these archetypes is that they have prepared themselves mentally, physically, and emotionally for the possibility of initial failure.  And, they have disciplined themselves to consistently turn the initial setbacks/hurdles/opposition to their advantage in the most creative ways.  Worth noting also is the fact that the best of both are tenacious and disciplined in preparing themselves to think/speak/act in this adaptive way.  

Their adeptness at adaptation is no accident.  Making lemonade when presented with nothing but lemons is their modus operandi.  

Lemonade it is, then!

Energy+/-

Energy is required for:

• The functioning of each cell, organ, and system in our body.
• Getting the work of an organization done.
• Fighting wars and negotiating peace.
• Running the bases.
• Thinking.
• Plowing a field.
• Engaging others authentically.
• Reflecting on what works and what doesn't.
• Putting man on the moon (or Mars, for that matter).

From your science classes you will remember that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (as far as we know currently).  It is transferred from one being/entity/state to another.  

Think of the way some folks seem to energize you, how they boost your energy, fire you up.  On the other hand, others manage to suck the energy right out of you (as if they were black holes).  

You/I/We are in a constant state of energy transfer.  We can "push" positive and powerful energy in the direction of others, or we can emanate negative energy.  

We don't get to decide how much energy there is; however, we do get to decide what kind of energy we transfer to others and how robustly we do so.

I know the kinds of energy transferers I prefer to be around.  I know the kind I prefer to be.