Over the last year and a half, we have created, built and refined our district Innovation Plan, focusing on creating opportunities for each student in Elgin ISD to experience real-world learning projects once per semester. Now we face our biggest challenge: gathering like-minded individuals to join with us in pushing a change strategy in a district that currently solely focuses on state-created accountability measures. As we begin our change strategy in earnest, we will need to find opinion leaders and others who have open-minded perspectives to formulate what this plan looks like on the ground, in the schools, with the teachers. We understand that we are asking our district’s teachers to make a significant change in how they teach and how their students learn. As we move through this process, we will need to engage in what Patterson, Grenny, McMillan and Switzler call “crucial conversations” in their book of the same name.
We understand that crucial conversations occur when three components are present: emotions are high, stakes are high, and opinions differ. We also understand that these conversations can be scary, and we acknowledge that these conversations are not happening currently at the district or campus level, due to many factors. The power of inertia in a small, rural district in a small town is strong; many teachers not only do things the way they always have done, but are afraid to change because they are afraid to “get in trouble” or go against the norm. That being said, we can see from the data and from accountability measures that the district’s current approach is not working, and it is a time ripe for change. It is our job, and our challenge, to bring our team forward through this change strategy as a unified front, rather than risking isolated pockets of resistance. Crucial Conversations identifies seven aspects of holding meaningful conversations with others.
“How would I behave if this were what I really wanted?”
(Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, & Switzler, 2012, p. 48)
We feel that the most important part of any conversation is the willingness of those who participate within it to listen to each other. Starting from the heart means clearly communicating with focus on what you really want from your change strategy while establishing an atmosphere of mutual respect. To create dialogue, the free flow of ideas between actors, there must be give and take between all parties.
As the leaders, myself and my team will have to hold fast to the concept of assuming positive intent, and not questioning the motivations of others, especially if they make a comment that might challenge our ideas. If my team and myself are able to do these things, we will be able to accomplish what we want while also incorporating the ideas of others. In turn, this will also engage our audience in the concepts being discussed. This will lead to our chances of them engaging in the same types of discussions with others outside the immediate team, therefore improving the chances of implementing our change strategy.
Learning to look is a critical step that again engages the crucial piece of meaningful conversations: listening. Listening can take many forms, including reading body language and looking for eye rolls and other nonverbal cues. This aspect of the process is important to remember because “most of us do have trouble dual-processing (simultaneously watching for content and conditions) – especially when both stakes and emotions are high” (Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, & Switzler, 2012, p. 53).
Since our project is long-term and requires participation from teachers at 6 different campuses implementing many steps to be successful, two-way communication will be a critical aspect of our success. We will need to identify when conversations may have veered into defensiveness or avoidance, what the authors call “silence or violence” or, are building and maintaining true dialogues. Identifying spaces where crucial conversations may occur will be something that all of us as facilitators will have to learn to expect, plan for, and understand how to facilitate. Personal styles under stress are important to identify, as members of our team may have different responses to stress despite having the same goal. As shown in our Six Strategies of Influence Matrix and our Four Disciplines of Execution Model, regularly scheduled short, focused and facilitated meetings will accomplish this goal of looking, listening, and responding.
A safe space to talk is something that is vital to our success. When having conversations that are high-risk and full of emotion it is extremely important that all sides feel valued, respected, and that they are free to express their emotions when needed. True growth and change begins when people feel safe to express their true thoughts and feelings. Crucial Conversations encourages us to truly care about how our counterparts are feeling and where their interests lie.
When misunderstandings or conflict happen, we will need to step out of the conversation, reevaluate and reestablish our mutual purpose. When we notice this occurring, we will commit to reestablishing and seeking a mutual purpose, recognizing the purpose behind the strategy, and brainstorming new strategies.
While implementing our Innovation Plan, we must create a safe space and engage in regular dialogues with stakeholders. We must also create an environment where everyone feels that they can contribute freely. This will help mitigate misunderstandings or preconceived notions about the students’ ability to succeed.
Knowing how to take control of your emotions is important when having conversations. Conflict may occur and when it does, we must remember that we are in charge of our own emotions. One way to start is to retrace our path. Retracing our path consists of noticing the behavior, getting in touch with our feelings, analyzing our story and getting back to the facts (Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, & Switzler, 2012).
As leaders, when we are angry or hurt, we must pause and reframe our mindset. It is important to reflect on the rest of the story: what is our role in the problem, what do we really want, and what would we do right now if we really wanted this?
When implementing change, we must persuade not demand. If we are demanding, we risk the safety that we have developed. We need to remember to state our path. STATE is an acronym to help us remember the steps which are: share your facts, tell your story, ask for others’ paths, talk tentatively and encourage testing (Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, & Switzler, 2012).
We are asking people to change the way they teach and this can be hard or scary for them. As many failed initiatives have shown, demanding change will not be effective. We have learned that we must build consent in order for change to be effective. Having conversations about our path forward will be key in building this consent.
When the conversations begin, we must share the facts on how learning via real-world projects will help our students. For example, the success of our Hour of Code night in 2018 and our summer Coding Camp in 2019 showed that our community values hands-on learning via computational thinking and wants students to have greater access to this type of learning. By telling our story and sharing our passion we will encourage others to do the same.
As teachers, we are taught that students come to us from a variety of different backgrounds and those backgrounds shape who they are and how they learn. The same is true for adults. A person’s past experiences will shape how they view the world and how they think. Just as we are to consider how our students learn and how their environment affects their experiences, we must do the same in our crucial conversations.
Each person in the conversation should be allowed to tell their story so that the other can “walk in their shoes”. Understanding each other’s past as it contributes to their side of the story opens many doors. Not only does it keep the dialogue free and flowing, it also helps to alleviate any anxieties or worries each other has.
As the conversations around our Innovation Plan flow, it will be important for us to remember: Agree, Build, and Compare. We must focus on what we agree upon, build up what is missing, and compare when we differ so that we are constantly moving toward success.
It is important that “before making a decision, the people involved decide how to decide” (Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, & Switzler, 2012, pg.179). Actions must be determined by consensus, otherwise the results can be scattershot, rendering the plan ineffective.
Our plan involves two methods of consistent communication: short, weekly meetings and a shared Google Classroom. This phase of Crucial Conversations connects to our 4DX Cadence of Accountability in which we establish the methods that all stakeholders will use to keep each other accountable and keep the plan moving forward to its goal of once per semester real world learning projects for each student in Elgin ISD.
We are asking the teachers in our school district to change the way they teach and their students learn once per semester, in order to improve access to real-world learning opportunities for all students in our school district. We understand that we will encounter negative reactions and perceptions. It is important that we remember not to discount or silence these reactions, but engage with them in order to create safe spaces for collegial discussions with solutions as the ultimate goal. Additionally, we must always stay true to what we know to be necessary and critical for the learning of the students in Elgin ISD. The reality is that change is uncomfortable, and reactions as such are natural and understandable. Staying out of judgement, remaining willing to listen and staying true to what we know to be necessary are our key courses of action.
References
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2012). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Sandra Negro 