Learning for the future

Over the past few months I've been reading a lot about where people consider the future of education to be heading. I find it interesting to delve into the various perspectives about what education might look like in the future and would like to share some of these.

The first is a summary of some key points from a webinar discussion between two key players in the world of education and learning, Ken Robinson and Peter Senge. Their discussion was entitled 'Learning for the Future' and offered the following snippets:
- Schools are still the answer. What we have to re-think is what a 'school' is.
- It's not that (some) students don't want to learn, its that they don't want to learn the way that we're teaching.
- Schools as communities of learners: We learn from each other - learning is a social act. It is deeply personal and inherently collective (I love this quote). Learning for the future involves learning what it means to think together, to act together.
- Schools are organised the way they are because of the technologies available at the time.
- Just as in an agricultural model of farming, too much emphasis on the yield, output and results will eventually destroy the soil and land beneath the surface. The same metaphor applies to learning. Too much focus on output, results and the yield will eventually destroy the 'story of learning' that exists as part of the culture.

I'm also currently reading through Future Wise: Educating our Children for Changing World by David Perkins. He offers the following six broad trends that are pushing the boundaries of what's taught and the way it's taught:

(1) Beyond basic skills - 21st Century skills and dispositions: There appears to be a global trend converging towards the cultivation of critical and creative thinking, collaborative skills and dispositions, leadership, entrepreneurship and the related skills and dispositions that speak strongly  to living and thriving in our era.

(2) Beyond the traditional disciplines - renewed, hybrid, and less familiar disciplines: Themes such as bioethics, ecology, recent ideas from psychology and sociology, and other areas that address opportunities and challenges of our times.

(3) Beyond discrete disciplines - interdisciplinary topics and problems: Many curricula introduce students to daunting, contemporary problems of an emphatically interdisciplinary character, such as the causes and possible cures of poverty or the trade-offs of different energy sources.

(4) Beyond regional perspectives - global perspectives, problems, and studies: Attention not just to local or national but also to global matters, for instance, world history or the global interactive economic system or the possible meanings of global citizenship.

(5) Beyond mastering content - learning to think about the world with the content: Educators are encouraging learners not just to master content academically but also to notice where content connects to life situations, yields insights, and prompts productive action.

(6) Beyond prescribed content - much more choice of what to learn: In some settings, educators are supporting and coaching learners in choices about what to study well beyond the typical use of electives.

I find it an interesting exercise to reflect on how many, and to what extent, my school is enacting these 'six beyonds'. For some schools, these have been a part of the conversation for many years, yet progress is limited. Others have been shaping the path for some time. It seems to me that more and more these sorts of attributes are becoming more common in school frameworks.

Photo Credit
 

What Hamilton can teach us about intelligence and leadership

As a fan of musical theater I have been swept up in the fanfare surrounding Hamilton, the musical based on the life of American founding father Alexander Hamilton told through medium of hip-hop and rap. While my friends and colleagues wouldn’t describe me as a rap diehard, I do have an appreciation for the form and the lyrical tapestry that Lin Manuel Miranda weaves to tell the tale of Hamilton is something to behold.

Manuel Miranda appears to correlate the ability of a character to rap with their perceived historical place in the spectrum of intelligence. Those that are characterised as prodigiously intelligent (Hamilton, George Washington, Aaron Burr, Marque de Lafayette, Thomas Jefferson) rap regularly, often with intricate rhyming patterns. Those that are less intelligent rap less sophisticated verses, or sometimes not at all. One of those characters is that of Hamilton’s eventual wife - Elizabeth Schyler. Eliza comes from a well-to-do family and also has two other sisters (Angelica and Peggie) that are constant targets of affection from suitors looking to elevate their status by marrying into such a family. Eliza does not rap throughout the entire musical whereas her revered sister, Angelica, has many moments where she raps her story. She is said to be able to ‘match wits’ with Hamilton and certainly earns the moniker of being the most intelligent of all the Schyler sisters.

So what does a person do when they're a part of the hip hop scene but don’t rap? They provide a backdrop for the artists to rhyme verses. Us lay-people typically know this as beat boxing and it can take many different forms. Those who beat box provide a tailored backing track for others to rap to. So there you have it, intelligent people rap and those lower down the cognitive ladder beat box.

This analogy serves as a useful backdrop for learning, leadership and education. As it did back in the 1700s, society still has a tendency to define intelligence through a narrow lens. Unfortunately it appears as though our definition hasn’t evolved over the past 300-odd years. Typically those that are competent scientists and mathematicians find themselves somewhere near the top of the pile, then come those that are gifted with writing, reading and speaking. The humanities usually follow and everything is rounded out by followers of the arts and physical pursuits. Despite recent commentary from modern educational thinkers, this model still pervades many societies and cultures.

By following this, Eliza is not seen as being intelligent. Hamilton is clearly adept with words and numbers (and can rap very well), so he has her covered. But one thing that we know about intelligence is that it manifests itself in different ways. What the beat boxers of this world show us is that they possess a great deal of emotional intelligence. No-one in this world can claim to be the top dog at everything and those that beat box show us that they possess the self-awareness to not only recognise talents in others, but also to notice when opportunities arise for them to support these talents. I believe that good leaders are like this. They know when to rap and when to beat box. They are able to adapt their leadership style to either engage and facilitate inquiry among their colleagues or just as easily support, pacify, console and coach, depending on what the situation requires. After all, leadership is context-driven. I often wonder what our current world would be like if some of the leaders of the past were more like Eliza and less like Hamilton.

Intelligence isn’t a one-size-fits-all model to behold and it most certainly isn’t hierarchical (at least not in the way that we most commonly define it now). We need to challenge ourselves to expand our view of intelligence so that both the Eliza’s and Hamilton’s of our time are able to find their place in the world in a meaningful way.

Photo Credit: Gamma Man via Compfight cc

Reasons for change

Change management is a leadership topic that is regularly discussed and analysed. There are myriad books devoted to unpacking the processes involved with change, yet it remains one of the most difficult things to define. I think that's what makes people who can deal with change more valuable. Understanding the change process, or a version of it, is an important step in being able to deal with it, and to help avoid (or manage) resistance to change from colleagues or peers. I once heard it explained this way and have found it to be a useful framework for helping to decide on which next steps to pursue in different scenarios.

Resistance to change can be described in three broad categories: I don't like it, I don't understand it, I don't like you.

I DON'T LIKE IT: There will always be a portion of people that simply don't want to change. A general outline of where people fall on the 'change acceptance continuum' can commonly look like:

Innovators - 2.5%
Early Adopters - 13.5%
Early Majority - 34%
Late Majority -  34%
Resistors -  16%

It's important to understand the possibility of that group of resistors (or laggards). I'm always disappointed when 100% of the population aren't as excited about an improvement initiative as I am, but it's a reality. You can't please everyone all the time. A way to approach this group of people was once described to me through the analogy of a garden. You need to take care of a garden and tend to the conditions that will help the plants to grow. But it's a waste of time and resources to water the rocks - they won't grow. A lot of the time in these instances the collective of the larger group will bring the resistors on board, or they will leave. It takes time, though, and it's paramount that the initiative becomes widely accepted in order for this to happen. Jim Collins' work in 'Good to Great' discussed the idea of ‘getting the right people on the bus', which suggests that one of the keys to success in an organisation is to have the right people employed to achieve your goals - and to move on anyone that is not aligned. I think that this has the propensity to be easily misinterpreted. People definitely should be aligned to an organisational vision and mission, no doubt about that. However, they may need time to fully develop an understanding and appreciation of what is being actioned. This is effectively achieved within a a culture of feedback, collaboration and trust, not of fear of being thrown off the bus. In this case, people who are viewed as resistors could actually part of the late majority group. Additionally, what looks like laziness is often exhaustion. Change is about developing automatic behaviours, changing the old ones. This requires a great deal of energy from the rational and emotional sides of people. In the end, the emotional side will always win if both are exhausted. which leads into the next category.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT: In their book, 'Switch', Chip and Dan Heath refer to the idea that most resistance to change is situational, not personal. They describe an experiment that gave people free buckets of wretched popcorn. Some people ate more than others - despite the fact that it was stale and didn't taste nice. This resulting data could logically be construed as showing that these people have poor eating habits and need to be educated on how to correct them. However the revelation was that those that ate more were actually given bigger buckets of popcorn. The situation guided their behaviour instead of their personal view or habit. It can be helpful for agents of change to use this idea in their dealings with people. By shaping the path of the change initiative and designing the situation to work in their favour, change events can be fast-tracked. In many cases what looks like resistance to change is actually often a lack of clarity. If people don't understand not only the imperative to change, but also the key steps along the way, then they are more likely to look at a destination that either seems to far away that they'll be exhausted by the time they get there, or they won't be able to see it at all. The 'I don't understand it' group are important because they may actually be supporters of the change but are either too tired or confused about it that they don't adopt.

I DON'T LIKE YOU: Relationships are paramount in modern society and the associated skills of collaboration and communication are constantly emphasised as being vital in order to be successful in the 21st century workforce. If change agents want initiatives to be implemented as successfully as possible then it will be helpful if they have strong relationships and support from the people around them. Michael Watkins offers this advice for leaders that are entering new organisations - failing to create momentum during the first few months virtually guarantees an uphill battle for the rest of your tenure during the job. He talks about the notion of having 3 months (or 90 days) to achieve the break even point of contributing as much value to an organisation as you consume from it. People often look to those in their social network for cues to the 'right' way of thinking and acting. If you are one of those people then you stand a much better chance of creating early adopters or early majority members in your organisation. He also talks about The Coalition Building Cycle: Gaining allies helps you recruit others, which increases your resource base, which increases the likelihood of your agenda's success, which helps you further in gaining more allies....and the cycle begins again. If you don't have good relationships with your colleagues then you are already rowing against the current without a paddle.

References and further reading:
- Watkins, M. (2003) The First 90 Days: Critical success strategies for new leaders at all levels.
- Heath, C. & Heath, D. (2010) Switch: How to change things when change is hard.
- Kotter, J. (2014) Accelerate (Also see Leading Change and A Sense of Urgency)
- Fullan, M. (2001) Leading in a Culture of Change (Also see Change Leader)
- Collins, J. (2001) Good to Great: Why some companies make the lead...and others don't.

Photo Credit: Wouter de Bruijn via Compfight cc

Who is the self that teaches?

I've spent the first part of this school year delivering some IB workshops and am currently preparing to deliver a couple more in the next few months. Some interesting things that I've been reading about lately relate to the idea that the more familiar we are with our inner terrain, the more sure footed our teaching and living becomes.  As important as teaching methods and strategies may be, perhaps the clearest indicator of one's ability to perform is an insight into what is happening inside them as they do it. With that in mind, it can be useful to consider the following profiles and to decide which one best aligns with each individual.

The following were developed by Art Costa and Robert Garmston as part of Cognitive Coaching. Credit is also due here to JoAn Radojkovich and Julian Edwards for introducing these to me in this context.

As an educator, what do you believe your role is?
 

Cognitive Processor: To develop students' ability to think clearly, to use intellectual reasoning to solve problems and to make rational decisions.

Self-Actualizer: To nurture the individual child's unique potentials; to allow full development of his/her creativity and sensitivity, and to encourage personal integrity, love of learning and self fulfillment.

Technologist: To diagnose the learner's needs and abilities, to design instructional strategies which develop skills and competencies, and to produce trained people who are able to function efficiently in our ever-changing technological society.

Academic Rationalist: To transmit to young people the basic knowledge, skills, traditions, academic concepts and values necessary to interpret, participate in and further essential content of the disciplines.

Social Reconstructivist: To create a future world condition of peace, harmony, equality and love; to foster a new society with humans who can live together in balance with their environment and with each other.

Which profile do you most align with?

Which profile do you think best aligns with your parent community?

Can you belong to more than one profile?

Is it possible to shift from one profile to another? Does the experience of a teacher define which profile they are most likely to identify?

When would this sort of information be useful for schools? For teachers? For prospective employees or clients?

Photo Credit: harry harris via Compfight cc

Feeling like a leader

 

 

 

***Although I wasn't part of the live feed, the impetus for this post came from a review of Thursday's #pypchat on Leadership in the PYP***

 This year is an interesting one for me professionally. It's the first year that I'm not either a classroom or specialist teacher and have taken on the role of PYP Co-ordinator/Deputy Head of Junior School. It's a fantastic opportunity for me and I'm currently on a very steep learning curve - but sometimes I find these to be the best.

Several of my colleagues have stepped into similar roles over the past few years and I've was eager to gather their perspectives prior to beginning of this year. Two of the most sticky pieces of advice I received were 'now your day is going to much less structured, but your work will also be much less visible - you need to make it visible' and 'I've found that teachers generally want to feel like you've got their back when it comes to teaching and learning'.

Now this is going to sound like an excuse, but I really have been super busy. Seriously. I've found myself doing much more of the admin/clerical side of things instead of the curriculum development that I was expecting. To use a PYP format, there's been.....

An increased emphasis on.....                              A decreased emphasis on.....

       Organising co-curricular lists and sign ups       Organising collaborative experiences for teachers

          Completing paperwork for the office                                  Co-teaching lessons

                      Writing emails to parents                                       Writing blog posts here

Engaging in discussions about students shifting grades    Engaging in discussions about inquiry

I could go on. And I will.....

An increased emphasis on.....                              A decreased emphasis on.....

Bus timetables                                                            Assessment

                 Duty schedules                                                 Innovative learning initiatives

                               Managing                                                                    Leading

It is is the last point that I'd like to speak to specifically. Firstly, I don't think you can be a good leader without also being a good manager. So I understand that some of these tasks are important. I also understand that my context dictates a hefty amount of my practice - and that this will change over time. But over the past couple of weeks I've made some specific changes to my schedule that I think have improved the way that I perform my role.

As the initial onslaught took hold my first move was to protect the time that I have with my family. I have two young daughters and, while I could easily be at work with plenty to do until after 7pm each night (as I'm sure any teacher would understand), no-one is giving these years back to me when I'm retired and my girls are only this age once. So I leave work 'early' in order to spend time with them before they go to bed and pick things up later on at night. This was my number one preference, but it didn't solve my admin/curriculum balance issues. Further adaptation was needed.

My second change began only two weeks ago. Because it is my first year as PYPC, and I know that I need to get my head around every UOI across the entire school in order to manage the vertical and horizontal articulation of the POI (and contribute to the development of each UOI), I meet with each grade and specialist weekly. Our previous PYPC met with each grade fortnightly and specialists less frequently (there were different times built into the yearly schedule for her to catch up with teams that don't exist this year). She was highly experienced and also had a greater understanding of the POI as she had played a major role in establishing it - so I figure she didn't need the regular catch ups that I do. This takes up quite a large portion of my week and I've been finding that the rest of my time is being spent organising things that I find less desirable (although acknowledge the importance of....).

In the week before break I cancelled all meetings with grades and specialists. Not only did it feel good to send out that email, but it provided me with a great opportunity to do more of what is important about my role - become visible and support teachers. Firstly, I was able to give time back to teachers - only 40mins but its better than nothing. Time is such a valuable commodity and any opportunity that I can provide to give it back to people is surely worthwhile. Secondly, the impact of my decision was limited because of the timing. I met with everyone during weeks 1, 2, 5 & 6 of each UOI. This means that I was a part of the reflection process as a UOI was winding up (although it is on-going throughout the UOI) and also helped to develop the next planner to implement. In weeks 3&4, the UOI is typically humming along so there is less need to meet with me. During these weeks I can use the free time to co-teach with grades, lead lessons so that class teachers can observe their students, assist teachers with provocations, assessments and documentation, and also be on hand to celebrate learning as it occurs. This is where my passion lies - being involved with the moments of learning.

This is also where I cross over the intersection of management and into leadership. Being able to observe behaviours and habits in students and teachers - to provide them with feedback on their learning and practice (and for them to return the favour). Being able to take part in exciting discussions and trials of innovation and creativity. Being able to capture the wonder on a child's face and build on it to create meaningful learning experiences. Being able to listen.

I've often felt like a leader throughout my career. But to be honest this year has felt the least leadershipesque of all. Sure, I get to talk to people and it feels like they value my advice - perhaps they see me as a leader, I don't know. But to me a leader is someone who is able to support and be a part of (when required) new ideas, someone that causes learning, someone that models, observes and shares great practice, someone that scouts talent (all forms) in students and teachers, and someone that turns challenges into opportunities. I feel like I was able to do more of this when I was a grade-level leader, now that my job title has changed the tide seems to have turned. I'm working on turning it back.

The importance of standardisation

Standardisation in education is a topic that garners many opinions. Some believe that it is essential in order for all students to receive a guaranteed level of education. Others say that standardised testing plays a vital role in allowing the stakeholders of education to track performance of both students and teachers. Some state that an over-reliance on the standardised approach has created havoc in the teaching and learning that is supposed to occur in education institutions. 

Traditionally, mass education of the population, in order for them to serve the needs of the workforce, lead to school curricula becoming standardised. This was done with the best of intentions and the general reason is that this approach is in the best interests of the economy. A hierarchy of subjects also developed and Ken Robinson highlights this extensively in his speeches on creativity. As time has moved forward, so has standarisation. Now there are not only standardised curricula that is followed at schools but, in some places around the world, standardised testing of students has become prevalent. A few examples of what this has lead to includes the creation of league tables, tracking of performance, high-stakes testing (and cultures of 'teaching to the test'), and the ability for schools to judge their individual curriculums against world standards.

I recently read an interview with Pasi Sahlberg, who is the Director General of CIMO (Centre for International Mobility and Cooperation). In the interview he talked about some of the keys to the success of the Finnish education system. He also mentioned standardisation. He says that he believes standarisation has been focussing on the wrong parts of the education system. He states that instead of over-standardised teaching and learning in schools by prescribed curricula, the focus should be on the standardisation of three things:

1. A universal standard for financing schools, so that resources are channeled to schools according to their real needs. 
2. A universal standard for time allocation in schools, allowing pupils to have a proper recess between classes and a balanced curriculum among academic learning, the arts and physical education.
3. A universal standard for teacher preparation that follows standards in other top professions. He also suggests that initiating a bar exam type of system would go a long way towards higher professional standards in teaching.

These questions were answered in the context of the education system in America, so they obviously don't apply to every school around the world. There are, however, some key points that all schools could consider. Other national systems and governments could look at their own resource allocation and teacher training systems - could they work better? How does the distribution of funds operate? Is it equitable? Should it be? 

Any school could look at Sahlberg's advice on time allocation - what does your timetable look like? Do all subjects receive equal weighting? What is your institution's perspective on this? Are students receiving appropriate amounts of time for breaks between learning? How do you train and develop your staff? Are there pre-requisites for your staff before they're considered for hiring - or in terms of training?  

These are questions for all leaders to be considering, and should be considering if they want to continue to improve - or indeed transform education.

Photo credit

The Big Picture

The New South Wales Government has recently decided to postpone the introduction of the Australian National Curriculum by a year. They claim that the reason for taking this action is so that they can arrange to offer appropriate professional development to all staff. The NSW says it will cost around $80 million over four years to implement the curriculum and provide professional development to teachers. The Federal Government has failed to provide funding for this development and so the decision has been made to postpone the implementation.

Peter Garrett, Federal Minister for Education, has expressed disappointment at the delay and believes that 'there is no justifiable reason for the 11th hour backdown'. He doesn't believe that this is viable excuse and suggested that the NSW Government was shirking it's responsibilities in implementing the curriculum.

Last Friday a group of leaders at my school participated in an exercise that helped us to define the most dominant aspects of our individual leadership styles. There were four options:

• North - are innovators and like to take action and get things going;
• South - like to ensure that everyone's voice has been heard before making a decision;
• East - aim to see the big picture before putting a plan into action;
• West - like tick all the boxes and know every detail about the effects of the action before proceeding.

It was noted that leaders generally exhibit aspects of all four options but the task asked us to choose which one was most dominant. This helps us and others to understand how we work and what barriers we may face when working with different styles.

It seems Mr. Garrett has more of a 'North' leadership style in that he is obviously keen to get the curriculum into action. Unfortunately, he has failed to recognise one of the most important parts of what I referred to previously as 'The How' in curriculum development. Professional development of staff is a key part of effectively implementing a curriculum and adequate provisions must be made to allow for this. If this is not provided a curriculum runs the risk of falling short in the provision of quality education for its students. If this is to be the 'highest quality curriculum in the country', as Mr. Garrett claims, it is important to ensure that it is appropriately implemented.

Curriculum - Part VI

The final part of THE HOW is concerned with how the Leadership creates and maintains culture within a school and also how the school is managed to ensure that the curriculum is being implemented.

In order to become a learning-focused school, there are several factors that need to become embedded in the culture of a school and support curriculum coherence. In order for culture to develop, effective leadership is required. This involves initiating the core competencies highlighted in my previous post (moral purpose; understanding change; relationship and knowledge building; coherence making).

The factors that support a culture of authentic achievement include:

• Shared norms and values
• Focus on student learning
• Reflective dialogue
• Deprivatisation of practice
• Collaboration

The goal for the leadership team is to make these factors implicit everyday for the school.

The Management involves creating and maintaining effective structures and processes for the allocation of people (P), time (T) and resources (R) to achieve the school's mission through the implementation. These structures and processes can include systems such as:

• Job descriptions (P)
• Meeting agendas and schedules (T)
• Team structure and hierarchy (P)
• Purchasing systems (R)
• Professional development opportunities/systems (P)
• Budget allocation (R)
• Strategic planning (T)
• Coaching and mentoring (P)
• Physical space - eg. facilities and materials (R)
• Hiring policies (P)
• Timetable structure (T)
• Appraisal system (P)

Leadership can never be effective without good management

During the creation of a culture, leaders need to consider the factors that may affect curriculum implementation. These can occur at a school level and include things such as:

• The personality, relationships, knowledge and skills of leaders.
• Whether or not the school community believes students will or won't be disadvantage by curriculum changes.
• The flexibility of the curriculum design.

They can also occur at a teacher level and include things such as:

• Teacher beliefs and values.
• Subject knowledge (essential teacher readings are a good way to develop this).
• Disposition towards reflection
• Pedagogical content knowledge (how do students learn?).
• Willingness to share and collaborate with colleagues.
• Level of influence with other faculty members.

When all of the elements addressed in my posts combine, a coherent curriculum can be achieved. A coherent curriculum is the key to the alignement of vision, mission, learning targets, pedagogy and assessment. I would like to thank Gordon Eldridge and Sasha Marshall of the PTC for leading a thoroughly informative workshop on curriculum leadership, from which I synthesised much of this information.

Curriculum - Part V

THE HOW - This part of a curriculum is concerned with how the faculty will get 'The Who' to achieve 'The What'. Part of this involves an agreement on the teaching strategies that will be employed and part of it involves the leadership that should happen for this to take place. By-products of leadership (culture, management and creation) will be discussed in the next post.

CORE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES:

These are the teaching methodologies or strategies that are essential for successful learning in the implementation of a particular curriculum. These can be organised around a 'premise'.

A premise should be research-based in order to facilitate best practice,

for example:

Premise - Students learn about excellence through exposure to models of excellence in both product and process

Instructional Strategy - Teachers will model the process of construction of text and/or jointly construct an example of text every time a new genre is introduced.

By having a core selection of instructional strategies, a school can be more aware of how they are implementing their curriculum. It is, however, important for school leaders to decide how closely they will require their teachers follow these strategies. Some schools might mandate the practice and others might leave it more flexible.

LEADERSHIP:

The framework for leadership below is authored by Michael Fullan and summarises the competencies that leaders should use in order to create a culture that supports authentic achievement. In doing so, leaders need to consider the context, which includes: past history; present beliefs; values and assumptions; and present practices.

Moral Purpose - In simplest terms, means 'acting with the intention of making a positive difference'. In education this positive difference can be referred to as 'causing learning.

Understanding Change - While it is essential for leaders to understand the change process, it is also important for them to understand the context they are dealing with for each group or person.

Relationship Building - If relationships improve, things get better. If they stay the same or become worse, ground it lost. Effective leaders encourage purposeful interaction and problem solving.

Knowledge Creation and Sharing - Good leaders create environments that favour the exchange of ideas, provide opportunities to share and foster a moral commitment to share knowledge. Turning information into knowledge is a social process, and good relationships are required if we are to share and create knowledge.

Coherence Making - Involves making sure that the culture a leader wants is supported by the management structures. This is an on-going activity that leaders address. They need to ensure that valuable patterns and practices are recognised and retained.

Being Extraordinary

This week I am attending a conference about Curriculum Leadership. So far it has been a fantastic course and the opportunity to learn and discuss various elements of both curriculum and leadership has been extremely valuable.

One of the readings we've discussed today is concerned with leadership at the systems level. System leadership fosters leadership as a function of the system rather than coming from one individual. This type of leadership allows for a more sustainable approach because it doesn't rely on one person. If someone leaves the system then there are others who can carry on the process.

Leadership in this way involves managing the fine balance of allowing members of the system to network with each other and lead things in their own way yet also interrupt when required (when something is clearly failing, for example) and not to state the way things 'should be done'.

This sort of leadership requires someone to step away from the possibility of being the 'Great Ruler' who has all the answers to all of the questions. There are some people who are destined to be this type of extraordinary person and sometimes it can be difficult to turn away from this ideal. Sometimes we want to have all the answers. Sometimes we want to be the person that everyone turns to. It can be a kind of validation of our own hard work and knowledge acquisition. But we also need to think about the future and how best to serve 'the system' in the most positive way possible. Which will create the most positive influence?