Assignment2.2

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000172 EndHTML:0000007405 StartFragment:0000002392 EndFragment:0000007369 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/Rich/Desktop/Assignment%2022.doc **Assignment 2.2 Managing for Results** Applying Jim Collins’ principles to education is an interesting exercise. All his studies and leaders are industrial based. Results in industry are easily measured through profit/loss statements, stock performance quotes and quarterly dividends. Market forces are clearly defined and basic principles well documented. Education is somewhat more ephemeral. Results in education are not measured on a quarterly basis. Changes are not done easily or quickly and must meet public approval. End results of changes are measured in 13 year cycles. Mistakes or operational errors result in wasted lives. Innovation is rare and difficult. Leadership is precarious for higher level change agents. Interestingly, although most interviews by school boards for senior school leadership (Superintendent, Principal) always include questions about how the leader intends to innovate and change for improvement, very little time is spent on support from the boards on changes. This usually means that the most innovative managers (level 5) rarely apply for school leadership jobs and even more rarely keep them. That being said, those who dare can be Level 5 leaders and can be tremendous change agents (albeit short lived). To be a level 5 leader in schools one must accept that their career will not be spent in one place, but rather in many place affecting each and moving on. This is difficult for stable family life and is a cost that many choose not to pay. The inertia that must be overcome to be the change agent in an educational system is enormous. Schools have such a long and stable history of continually doing the same thing that the resistance to change is painfully large. Usually change is only available when a school system is in danger of hitting the rock bottom and must change to survive. Unfortunately, these are the conditions that create districts with economic difficulties that exacerbate the change process. Many times these districts are most receptive to making changes to ensure survival. Level 5 leaders go in knowing they will need to assemble a team to make systemic changes. They do the deed and leave a team in place to carry on the reforms. However, for a longer career in one place generally a Level 4 manager/leader is the most successful in the educational system. These effective leaders have a commitment to a clear compelling vision and assemble a team in pursuit of that vision. They evaluate the needs of the district and limit their changes to the most pressing needs. Changes that they make are ones that have a lasting impact, but may not be the most radical of changes. They are most effective in schools that are not in the most dire straits. Their leadership style is low key but constant. They tend to have extended tours in one spot and are thereby able to convert changes into standard operating procedures. The creation of “institutional memory” is the hallmark of these leaders.