Week 10 - Change Ain’t Easy
This week was based primarily on the work by Ronald Heifetz and his concept of adaptive leadership. I would like to address three points: Adult learning and leadership, adaptive v. technical change, and the self-care.
Learning required
Chapman and Randall use a case study of leading by part-time faculty as a way to bring in the importance of understanding adult learning theory when leading through transformation. I found this especially useful for me in my current role and in thinking toward the future because I will always work with adults. I say always because I don’t have strong desires to be a faculty member. Yes, I know that these students are considered young adults, but I accept the proposal that traditional-age college students are really in late adolescence rather than young adulthood. This line in the sand is a faint one, but still important.
Mezirow is cited in this chapter regarding a central assumption of adult learning: “Adults are trapped by their histories” (p. 53). This. Is. Key. When thinking about the necessary mindset shift that needs to occur with adaptive change, adults need to be able to do two things:
1) See their cages. This means that adults who want to learn need to be able to address, accept, and articulate how their individual history shapes the way in which they view the world. Understanding our limitations allows us to better understand that we don’t know what we don’t know. As a “leader”, I need to understand that people come with a variety of different experiences which places them at different points along a spectrum of learning. As someone who believes in social/systems/cultural change and works to achieve these ends, it is crucial that I understand this part of adult learning and meet people where they are.
2) See beyond their cages. If people, specifically adult people, stop at understanding their limitations but cannot and do not envision a life beyond them, mindset shifts and adaptive change will not happen. Just as it is my responsibility as a leader to meet people where they are, it is also my responsibility to encourage them to move out into other spaces.
Don’t just put a Band-Aid on it
One of the key takeaways from Heifetz this week was the importance of adaptive leadership when “leading deep social change” (loc 121). Regardless of some of the more troubling connections to social issues in the book, this helped me finally put words to an issue that has been plaguing higher education (and society broadly). Before I continue, let me highlight the major differences between adaptive v. technical solutions to problems. According to Heifetz and Linsky, the differentiation seems fairly simple:
1) Technical challenges call for those in charge to apply knowledge/tools they already have to solve the problem.
2) Adaptive challenges require the people with the problem learn new ways of solving the problem (loc 420).
Why did this mean so much to me?
In matters of social justice, social change, change of heart, mindset shift... whatever you want to call it... these are adaptive challenges. They require the people with the problem to learn new ways to create a solution. The problem is we (as social justice folks) have been throwing technical solutions at the problem. For example, if the issue is hostile climate on campus for people of color, the answer was to increase the number of people of color on campus OR provide training that often only last a couple of hours. Why? If people are uncomfortable with something then exposure to it will help (much like a fear of dogs or roller coasters). If people do not know how to interact with each other then train them on how to do it respectfully because that can be taught. Behavior changes can be taught. Or so we believe.
We do these things and then we wonder why nothing changes. We wonder why the issues regarding racial climate on campus that were brought up in 1986 re-emerged in 2016. We (as an institution) used technical solutions to adaptive challenges. We have not asked the people what they want. We have not dialogued about student and/or faculty lists of demands. Those in authority have let people know what can and cannot be done.
What would happen if we gave the problem back to the people... Guided them in finding a solution... Worked with them to give it a try? Would it be any more disastrous than what we have been doing? I think not.
While Heifetz and Linsky did not call it “self-care,” that is essentially what they were talking about in Part 3 (which we did not have to read but I found extremely useful). Very simply, you cannot be an effective leader if you do not take care of your body and soul. Part of this is knowing yourself. Spending time in reflection and contemplation. You have to be aware of personal dangers and pitfalls. Find your anchor. Know when to step back. Going to the balcony is not just about seeing what is going on for “the people,” it is also about understanding what is going on for yourself.