Class on Leadership

Have you ever felt as if you know something, but you aren’t always sure you can describe it to someone? Like the expression, “I can’t describe it, but I know it when I see it.” During the course of study on leadership, that is how I feel from time to time. I’ve know many people in leadership positions. Most were leaders by virtue of the position they held. They were leaders because they had followers. They were leaders because they said so. Some used their position as leader to threaten and intimidate. Others used their position to hide behind. Still others used it to motivate those who followed.
Needless to say, those leaders who used their power as a weapon were more difficult to work with than those who were inclined to motivate. That is not to say that thing didn’t get done under the mighty hand of intimidation. On the contrary, a lot of work was completed. The short term benefits were good. T’s were crossed, I’s were dotted and goals were met. But the price was high; usually it came in the form of low morale. I will spend no time here digging into the past of any individual to find out why s/he turned out to be a particular kind of leader. Instead, I will address the types of leadership and those factors or characteristics that effective leaders have in common.
There is no great mystery or a vault somewhere holding the secrets to what makes anyone an effective leader. I suppose the great debate might be whether leaders are born with an innate ability to lead, or whether leadership can be taught to anyone. Nature versus nurture suggests one or the other. I’m not sure you can separate the two.
As I begin to write, it seems necessary to clarify that when I use the term leadership, I am not equating it with management. I see the two as very different. While a single person can be an effective leader and a productive manager, the roles are not the same. Leadership is the act of having a vision: the ability to see what is coming down the road and what long term goal is needed to match the vision. It means inspiring those who are getting the actual work done to accept the vision and willingly follow along. The manager’s role is to organize the resources, make an action plan, and see that things get done. I don’t wish to draw too hard a line dividing the two. Certainly the roles can easily go hand-in-hand and one person can function in both capacities, but they are not the same; their purpose is not the same.
These definitions get in the way a bit. When reading the literature, the two words leadership and management are sometimes used interchangeably. Not everyone sees a difference. By example, I sit as the Chair of the Steering Committee for application to the Higher Learning Commission as we apply for regional accreditation. At any given moment I am required to act as a manager or as a leader. I understand how people can see the two interlocking, but I maintain that even though I’m called upon to be both, I am not both at the same time. When I am presenting to the larger population of the college about what regional accreditation is and how each individual benefits from such a move, I see myself as a leader, someone who knows how we as a college and as individuals will evolve through the transition and benefit by the achievement. When I’m organizing the people into committees and designating Chairs and providing the necessary resources, I am a manager. I’m finding the demands of leader and manager to be weighty in responsibility. The challenges are great as I try to be good at both.
Of all the words that I’ve read that are used to describe a good leader, the one I’m drawn to the most or, better yet, the one that moves me the most, is Authenticity. Inherent in being authentic is some basic components that are important. Trust is one of them: “Authenticity in a leader generates trust from others. Trust is an elusive quality, but in its absence almost nothing is possible.”[1] Trust goes beyond the simplicity of truth or lies. It is the supporting structure that faith is built on. For a leader to build faith in those she wishes to follow her, she must be honest. But beyond that, her followers must believe in her vision, her ability to lead, and her commitment to see things through. Leading with authenticity is foremost in building the trust needed if others are to embrace the vision, whether it be for change, growth, development, or any project that needs completion.
Perhaps synonymous with the word authenticity when describing leadership is the word integrity. Stephen Covey provides Ten Power Tools needed for effective leadership. The tenth tool, certainly not the least, is Integrity, “honestly matching words and feelings with thoughts and actions, with no desire other then for the good of others, without malice or desire to deceive, take advantage, manipulate , or control, constantly reviewing your intent as you strive for congruence.”[2] Congruence refers to the similarities between the leader and the follower, where each person or party is embracing the same or a common goal. Trust is built with integrity. Integrity is built on competency.
It is not enough to talk the talk of integrity. It must be supported by a skilled and experienced person who knows what it takes to be a leader. When people count on someone to reach for a vision and see things through, they are putting their trust in someone they believe is equipped to function in a demanding and powerful position. The power to lead people to reach beyond themselves, to embrace change in order to grow and come to a higher level of opportunity demands that the leader understand what is needed from her and the followers. While promoting such growth and change, a leader is ultimately asking for risks to be taken. How else can one be persuaded to take risks if the risk taker doesn’t trust the leader? Through experience, leaders “get to know the skills as motivating tasks of their constituents. They set goals that are higher than current levels, but not so high people feel only frustration.” [3]
As growth is achieved, or an individual develops a new skill, or the next level is attained, how do good leaders keep the faith of the stakeholders? Isn’t there enough value in a job well done? Isn’t the payoff intrinsic in achieving the goal or vision? It seems it takes a very impressive person who is complete, in and of her/himself, to answer yes to those questions. In fact, the majority of us are in great need of positive feedback for what we do. That we receive a paycheck for doing our job is not enough. However, according to Kouzes and Posner, only 40% of workers in North America say they receive any recognition for a job well done. The same is true for recognition of outstanding individual performance.
It is extraordinary that it is so difficult to give praise, and equally amazing how far a little praise can go. A strong, competent leader understands this. But let’s take it one step further. How do you go about showing recognition? Is it a one-size-fits-all proposition? Recently, a number of faculty-advisors were replaced with a full-time advisor in the college I work in. Each faculty-advisor has his or her own unique perspective on students that no one else in the college had or would ever have again. They were one of a kind. One day, all the faculty-advisors were informed that they were being replaced. There was no fanfare, no handshake, no anything. Nothing, that is, until the day of faculty development, where each faculty-advisor, without prior notice, was asked to stand and receive a plaque naming her/him “outstanding” at what they do, or I should say did. The faculty-advisors were uncomfortable, confused and taken off-guard. It was very painful to witness this. It didn’t go over as the administration hoped.
Several days later, one of the now former faculty-advisors came to me. He was clearly upset and wanted some direction. Listening to him, it became clear that what administrators had done wrong was not the plaque, but the dismissal in an out-of-hand way. The faculty-advisors wanted someone to recognize them for who they were and what they can contribute in training the new full-time advisors. They weren’t looking for anything more than the respect they deserved for the work they did. The plaque they received only reminded the faculty-advisors that they were no longer needed. In our haste to get full-time advisors in place, the administration forgot the people who had been doing the job all along, and doing the job well at that. Through a sort of mediation, the entire advising group met to work through this.
To this day, I still get the impression that the wounds inflicted by not recognizing the faculty-advisors properly are not completely healed over. Maybe they never will be. I’m not sure one can go back after the damage is done. But this is a good example of how recognition is a personal thing. Plaques and awards may have their place, but when the individual gets lost while being recognized, something is wrong. “What it comes down to is thoughtfulness; how much effort you put into thinking about the other person and what makes the recognition special for that person. It means observing an individual and asking: What could I do to make sure that she never forgets how much she means to us? What can I do to make sure he always remembers how important his contributions are?”[4]
A leader who understands the contributions of others has at least one of the characteristics of a transformational leader. A transformational leader understands that, through a collaborative effort, everyone contributes to the success of an organization and that everyone evolves with the achievement of goals set forth. On the other hand, transactional leaders take the view that things get done because there is a task that must be accomplished. For employers, the transaction is that there are employees, they work and they are paid for that work. When the work is completed and the goal is met, another goal is set and the work continues. Transactional leaders are not necessarily visionaries where evolution or change is concerned.
Effective leadership starts with a vision and a shared purpose, with everyone involved. This vision must include a good idea of where things are going and cannot rest solely on dreams. It may begin there, but a dream evolves into reality through a plan with individuals in place to see the plan through. When we see ourselves as part of the vision, we evolved as the vision becomes reality. In a very practical sense, this evolution may include new skills developed along the way. In a more philosophical sense, it may mean a new view of self for individuals. Either way, everyone has gained and everyone has moved forward.
There are a number of approaches to assessing leadership. One way is to define the attributes of good leadership, as in John Maxwell’s The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader. Maxwell believes that with these 21 qualities people can become the person others want to follow. The 21 qualities breakdown as follows: character, commitment, communication, competence, courage, discernment, focus, generosity, initiative listening, passion, positive attitude, problem solving, relationships, responsibility, security, self-discipline, servanthood, teachability, and vision. Maxwell doesn’t expect an individual to spring forth with all these qualities. On the contrary, he asks the question of whether we are willing to refine, develop and commit ourselves to the task of becoming a good leader. Perhaps this takes us back to the original question of whether one is born a leader or can be taught.
At this point I would say that neither is true or completely accurate. I would agree that a person’s general nature could lead her to be effective. I also believe that one’s general nature could stand in the way of her becoming an effective leader. So then it becomes more of an issue of development. Can an individual development into an effective leader? Yes. Can anyone develop into an effective leader? I agree with Maxwell, that only if one “…understands that becoming a leader takes time. The Law of Process says that leadership develops daily, not in a day. Part of a leader’s development comes from learning the laws of leadership, for those are the tools that teach how leadership works. But understanding leadership and actually doing it are two different activities.”[5]
It is clear that there is a certain amount of trial and error involved in developing leadership. But ultimately what makes a good leader is found not on what shows on the outside, like degrees or tailored clothes or even experience by itself. Every author I’ve read in one way or another believes and agrees that leadership starts within. Jim Collins would not use the word develop. He uses the word evolves to describe an individual who works to become a Level 5 leader. Level 5 is the pinnacle of effective leadership. It is the place where vision and altruism come together. “…the capability resides within them, perhaps buried or ignored, but there nonetheless. And under the right circumstances – self-reflection, conscious personal development, a mentor, a great teacher, loving parents, a significant life experience, a Level 5 boss, or any number of other factors – they begin to develop.”[6]
A leader who sees the greater good of growth in others and the growth of the organization in which she takes responsibility is a Level 5 leader. The human condition can play role in stalling an individual from achieving such a level. Circumstance beyond one’s control, learned behavior, poor training - these are only a few of the stumbling blocks. After it is all said and done, looking inward and making the choice to be effective is not impossible. I find myself on the leadership path and now realize every day that the leader I am is the leader I choose to be.
[1] Kerry Bunker & Michael Wakefield, Leading with Authenticity in Times of Transition, Center for Creative Leadership, 2005, pp 9 - 10
[2] Robert Covey, Principle-Centered Leadership, Stephen R. Covey, 1991, p 171
[3] James Kouzes, Barry Posner, The Leadership Challenge, John Wiley & Sons, 1995, p 66
[4]James Kouzes & Berry Posner, Encouraging the Heart, Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1999 p95
[5] John Maxwell, The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader, Maxwell Motivation, Inc, px
[6] Jim Collins, Good to Great, Jim Collins, p37

Class on Change

Do you think it is easy to change? Ah, it is very hard
to change and be different. It means passing through
the waters of oblivion.
D.H. Lawrence

If it is true that change is inevitable, then why is it that change can so easily disrupt the emotional world of individuals? What does D.H. Lawrence mean by oblivion? It turns out that it isn’t just whatever is new that makes change complex. It is the loss involved. Change, by its very nature, means that what was, the way things were, is no more. Something new is now in its place. If an individual is a creature of habit, then what is familiar represents a measure of safety. Change flies in the face of the familiar. It doesn’t matter if the change is a good idea. The change may even make things easier, more efficient, more economical, more liberating, or more convenient. Change may even be actively sought after, meaning that an individual may deliberately seek out and encourage the change. Conceptually, the change may look like a great idea. Practically, however, the individual may still feel threatened.
“It isn’t the changes themselves that people resist. It’s the losses and endings that they have experienced and the transitions that they are resisting. That’s why it does little good to talk about how healthy the outcome of a change will be. Instead, it is healthy to deal directly with the losses and endings.” [1] The logic or objective reality of what change can bring is no match for the subjective reactions of the individuals involved. So it behooves the creators of change, or the change agents, to take time to recognize the perspectives of all who are affected by change. Richard Montanye defines stakeholders as “the companies or individuals that have a vested interest in seeing the company succeed.”[2] In a quest to understand the stakeholders’ subjective perspectives, it may prove difficult to find the concrete measure of these losses. It may be that there is simply a loss of predictability.
Let’s get back to humans as creatures of habit. How often has it been heard that things are done “because we’ve always done it that way?” If we do what we do because it is familiar and predictable, then transitioning to something new and different will be a challenge. It is not impossible. But the transition will be successful, in part, because we recognize the emotional attachment to the past and the very real reactions to change.
The emotions that can be involved in the event of change include anger, anxiety, disorientation, fear, even depression. Individuals generally go through the stages of loss that include denial and bargaining. If this sounds familiar, it is because these are the same stages that people go through when they experience a death of a family member or close friend or partner. To one degree or another, these reactions are found in individuals within an organization when change comes. Each individual may not experience every emotion, but one can expect that within a group of individuals, there will be signs of these reactions. “Not everyone feels all of these feelings intensely, and people don’t go through them by the numbers. But within any group you can expect to encounter all of them and you need to get people to recognize that they can accept the situation and move forward if they work through these emotions. The danger is not from these emotions themselves, but rather from the way they make people afraid of what is happening to them.”[3]
When the loss is recognized and understood, a step in helping individuals through the change process is assisting them in being participatory in the change. If change is not seen as being imposed, but instead happens with the individuals’ input and contribution, the change can been seen as positive. “Coming to accept and adapt to change is in fact a process of balancing: ‘What have I lost?’ should be balanced by ‘What am I gaining?’ This is far different from ‘looking at the bright side. “Inventorying personal losses and gains is a tangible step that people can take in gathering the strength to move on.”[4] The resistance can be lessened if participating individuals have their own vision of being stakeholders. In other words, the stakeholders see that there is something in it for them.
Putting the topic of change in the perspective of an organization, we find the same emotional reaction we see in the individual’s personal life. Organizations should take heed of their staff members’ personal response to change. When preparing for change, change agents must not overlook the perspective of the stakeholders. They must adopt an action plan, sometimes called an integration plan, to negotiate the stages of change and the potential hurdles that will need to be jumped
. John P. Kotter of Harvard Business College recognizes eight stages in creating change successfully. They are:[5]
1. Establishing a sense of urgency
2. Creating the guiding coalition
3. Developing a vision and strategy
4. Communicating the change vision
5. Empowering broad-based action
6. Generating short-term wins
7. Consolidating gains and producing more change
8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture

For the purposes of this discussion, I will focus on the two that are most important. The first is communication; the second is leadership. Without question, communicating effectively to all stakeholders is vital to the success of any change.
A failure to communicate will undoubtedly lead to resistance. The clearer the change agent can be, the more likely individuals will be to follow in the new direction. Conversely, the more ambiguous and less forthcoming the change agent is, the more resistance will be met. They all are in direct proportion to one another.
“Keeping the stakeholders involved requires many forms of communication… communication is priceless, easy to achieve and easily forgotten”[6] How does the change agent communicate effectively? First, finding diverse ways of getting the information out will be beneficial. Not all individuals respond the same way to all forms of communication. Within an organization, there are many ways information can be disseminated. These include, but are not limited to, e-mail, small cohort meetings, large formal meetings, and newsletters. It is not enough to bring up what will change once or even twice. It is necessary to do an information campaign where the necessary details can be reiterated effectively to people in all affected areas. Reinforcing the reasoning for change, the procedure and expectations of the change, and the outcomes of the change will ensure all stakeholders have a clear understanding of the implications.
Additionally, it is necessary to keep the lines of communication open throughout the change event. “… spend at least as much time listening as telling. Your attention to this point will help keep others involved and motivated.”[7] Allowing opportunities for questions and answers where individuals can have the freedom to seek explanations and insight is helpful. Giving the opportunities for feedback from those implementing the change will go a long way in showing respect for other perspectives, as well as being a good resource for ideas.
Dispersing updates to keep individuals in the loop of information will remind everyone that the change agent hasn’t forgotten about everyone. Additionally, establishing a resource place for individuals to go to find out what they need to know is an effective tactic. With today’s technology, it is very easy for simple websites to be developed. Alternatively, resource rooms can be created where documents can live and breath to meet the need for communicating progress effectively.
Effective communication goes beyond just getting the information out. It can be the essential element that motivates individuals to first accept change and then embrace it. Sending a consistent message is no small matter. “If you are the boss, people will have their eyes on you. They will listen to your words, but will also look for inconsistencies between your words and what you communicate through body language and behavior.”[8] Sending mixed message does not build confidence. Quite the contrary, mixed messages are a sure way to enhance skepticism and skepticism will defeat any hope of getting the stakeholders to embrace the coming change. In the extreme, individuals can become adversarial and work against the change. Being consistent is vital to the success of efforts to create an open environment for change to happen.
The change agent is responsible for the use of effective communication. They are the leaders. Leadership should not be confused with management. The following definitions are but two of the many that can be found and adopted.
Management Definition: The process of setting and achieving
goals through the execution of five basic management functions:
planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling; that utilize
human, financial, and material resources.[9]
Leadership Definition: Leadership is a function of knowing yourself, having a vision that is well communicated, building trust among colleagues, and taking effective action to realize your own leadership potential. [10]
Using these definitions, it is apparent that the true difference between leadership and management is found in understanding the difference between vision and execution. A leader is involved in the conceptualization of ideas and influencing others by building trust. Managers are those individuals who execute the vision, the individuals who get things done.
Both serve a role in the effectiveness of change. Solid management works in the short term, while solid leadership takes the long view and looks toward the future. One alone cannot fulfill the need for vision and the need for planning. It is possible, of course, that one person can fulfill both roles but it must be understood that there is a distinction between the two roles. Make no mistake: strong management is crucial in the short term need to accomplish what is necessary. Just as bad leadership can destroy any possibility of success, so can bad management.
Because leaders influence others, they are the ones who take on the responsibility of influencing stakeholders to take on and embrace change. Leaders must recognize and acknowledge the human element at work whenever change is introduced. “Be sure that you have a visible leader and sponsor of change, someone who owns and leads the change initiative. The leadership must act as champion; assemble the resources needed for the project, and take responsibility for success or failure.”[11] If the leader is confident and can articulate the change expectations in a manner that clearly demonstrates that individuals have been considered, then getting followers will be easier. A genuine show of compassion for the process of change and its effect on the stakeholders will go a long way towards success.
A point of clarification is needed here. As I use the term leader or leadership, I’m not solely speaking of that lone individual who runs the show. In the traditional hierarchy of top down organizations, the leader is often at the top and looks down on those who are getting the work done. Good leaders are those who subscribe to the notion that everyone contributes to the success of change. Clearly, if the stakeholders are expected to buy in to the change initiative, then the leaders should be solid and effectual in their guidance.
“You do not have to like change to excel in changing times, but you do have to accept it and, at some point choose to make it work.” [12] Understanding the dynamics of changes is a large feat, and surely not one to be taken lightly. The better we are at seeing the complexity of change and the complex nature of humans in reaction to change, the more successful we can be at initiating change.

Change is the only constant.
Heraclitus, Greek Philosopher
[1] William Bridges, “Managing Transitions,” Perseus Publishing Services, May 2003, p. 24
[2] Richard Montanye, “Integrating Change and Embracing it!,” Richard Montanye, 2003, p. 15
[3] William Bridges, “Managing Transitions,” Perseus Publishing Services, May 2003, p. 30
[4] Harvard Business School, “Managing change and Transitions,” Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003, p.93
[5] Harvard Business School, “Leading Change,: Harvard Business School Press, 1996, p. 21
[6] Richard Montanye, “Integrating Change and Embracing it!,” Richard Montanye, 2003, p. 11
[7] Harvard Business School, “Managing change and Transitions,” Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003, p.38
[8] Harvard Business School, “Managing change and Transitions,” Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003, p.38
[9] www.crfonline.org/orc/glossary/m.html
[10] http://www.teal.org.uk/Leadership/definition.htm
[11] Harvard Business School, “Managing change and Transitions,” Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003, p.38
[12] Carol Kinsey Goman, “Adapting to Change,” Crisp Publishing Co., 1992, p. 36

My Profile

This is what I wrote as part of my application to graduate school:

Green Bay, Wisconsin would be considered a part of the Mid-West portion of the USA. It sits right on Lake Michigan. Many settlers from Germany and Belgium came here. They were farmers and they included my great-great grandparents. I did not grow up on a farm, rather the outskirts of town, with one brother and four sisters. In the sibling line-up, I fall in 5th place. I was born in 1956 and Christmas happens to fall on my birthday.

I grew up with a strong work ethic. My father was a self-taught man who had little patience for laziness. Chores and hard work were our way of life and school had its place. I was expected to do well, but parental involvement was not prevalent. It wasn’t until I was in 6th grade that a teacher realized that I couldn’t read. My education thus far was through a Catholic school, whose nuns were more concerned with discipline than learning. The reading teacher took me in her stern hands and made it her concern that I would read. She was not about to have an illiterate student in her class. To this day, many decades later, I still remember looking at the page and not recognizing most of the words there. But by the time the school year was over, I could read.

In high school I was on the honors list and involved in extra curricular activities, but somehow remained invisible to the powers that be. I wasn’t pretty, nor was I a cheer leader. My parents didn’t have money. With nothing in my corner except brains, I was told by my counselor that I wasn’t college material. I believed that, as no one in my family made college a priority. So I went to work.

I had a series of jobs that meant nothing but a pay check, which was important for paying the rent. I left my parents’ home when I was 18 to begin my life as an adult. It wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be. I sewed gloves, assembled some mechanical things that to this day I still can’t explain, and became a catering cook at the local university. I met someone who became a good friend. He insisted that I start attending college. I informed him I wasn’t college material, I was too old (I was 23), and I couldn’t afford it. The deck was stacked against me and there was no way possible I would be accepted.

Short of carrying me to my first class, my friend made me ready for college despite my reasonings. He was determined. I was terrified. I knew as I walked down the hall that university security sooner or later would spot me and escort me to the nearest exit door, realizing the terrible mistake admissions had made. I avoided the Chancellor at all costs. In four years no one ever realized the mistake. Instead what happened was that I fell in love with college. I was involved in anything political that was going on. I made good grades and I made friends that I still have today. As they handed me my diploma, I decided I was college material, after all

I went to graduate school for one year in 1982 and realized that I really wanted to work. I dropped out and moved to Minneapolis, Minnesota. I found work at a temp agency, learning computers. I enjoyed the work and I enjoyed the city that was large enough to keep me interested and small enough not to scare me. I live there still.

In 1986 I became a single mother. I didn’t know I was pregnant until 7 hours before I gave birth. It was quite a surprise to me and the world I lived in. My daughter was premature and stayed in the hospital for a number of weeks. Even in those weeks I didn’t have time to adjust. How does one go about adjusting to a new baby without preparation? I don’t have the answer even today. The experience changed my life, changed how the world turns on its axis, changed speech patterns and more. I had all the same issues and worries that most parents have. I didn’t have any answers and plenty of questions. Somehow I muddled through it and my daughter survived it all.

A friend called me one day in 1987 after she saw a post for a computer instructor in a local paper. After talking about it, I gave the place a call thinking “why not?” All they can say is no, which is exactly what they said. After describing my skills and credentials, I was informed that I didn’t qualify. I didn’t invest a whole lot in this so I wasn’t too put off by the rejection. Three hours later I received a phone call from another college affiliated with the college I called. I was nearly hired on the spot. I was given one computer literacy class to teach. I was successful and the next quarter I was given two classes to teach. Within nine months I was teaching full time. My subjects included Medical Terminology, Laboratory Math, Speech Communication and, of course, Computer Literacy. Not only was I college material, I was now a full-time college instructor.

After 8 years of teaching full-time, the Vice President of the college offered me an administrative position. Because of my nature, I was beginning to feel a measure of burnout in the classroom. My energy was waning and a new challenge was refreshing. I became the Curriculum Coordinator. However, to qualify for this position I had to have a Master’s Degree. I didn’t have that. So back to college I went. I enrolled in the Human Development Program at St. Mary’s University. The best word I can use for the experience is MAGIC. I was afforded the opportunity to write my own program. Within the framework of graduate expectations, I could construct the courses and curriculum that mattered to me. With the guidance and tutelage of an advisor, I was free to explore learning from a completely different perspective. I graduated with my Masters in 1996. I took with me a found poetic voice, a vision of learning “outside the box,” and a renewed sense of self.

Since graduating, I have adopted the Haiku form of poetry as medicine for my heart and soul. I love the discipline that it demands and it pure thoughtfulness. I also write free-form poetry. In the past year I have taken up Japanese Brush Painting. I’m also a photographer. These things do not hide away in my drawer to be brought out when I have time for them. In one way or another, they are a part of my everyday life. My eye is trained to see things and my ear trained to hear things in tuned with my art. I have the great pleasure of working with another woman who is an artist. Together we organize an annual artist colloquium where we invite artists to display their art to the community. It is an opportunity for artists who don’t see themselves as artists to gather in a place that celebrates their vision and skill. We just held our 6th annual show.

I was recently offered a position as Director of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment. I don’t need another degree to hold this position. In fact, I will never earn another degree because my work requires it. The next degree I earn will be solely because I want it. I would like to be in a program that allows me the same freedom that my master’s degree offered, namely, the freedom to be actively involved in the degree design. I wish to be the motivating factor in what I study and how I go about completing the work involved. I am disciplined and know how to manage my time. I’m a critical thinker and capable of thinking beyond text books and “how things have always been done.” I am most interested in the study of adults as learners. It would be an extension of my graduate work.

As far as accomplishments in my life, besides the ones already mentioned above, I’m a member of Who’s Who in Education, I’m a Capricorn, and I’m a Grandmother (although I don’t suppose that is my accomplishment.)

Paper on Creativity and Lateral Thinking

The following is the first course work I completed towards my Ph.D. in Human Behavior:


Creativity and Lateral Thinking

Von Oech suggests that a good “whack” upside the head is what is needed to get the average person off her chair and looking at the world through new eyes, with an open mind and guided by a sense of humor and a willingness or the courage to get it wrong sometimes.

Having come from the world of right and wrong, I know well the risk I take with von Oech’s approach. He would have me throw caution to the wind and make changes. He would have me play and be foolish. The purpose, of course, is to find that part of me that has been taught out by school and maturity. Namely, he would ask me to use my imagination.

As we grow, we are encouraged to play as a way to learn. As we grow further, we are expected to give up childish ways and focus on reason and practicality. And still further growth requires a mental lapse in remembering play and replacing it with thoughts of logic and objectivity.

Logic and reason are tough task masters. They leave little room for error. “When you play, you give yourself a license to try different approaches without fear of penalty.” The penalty of making an error is a strong deterrent to not taking things seriously. Making an error is tantamount to looking foolish. Von Oech dismisses such thinking by describing the notion that there is more than one right answer. He doesn’t stop there. Foolishly, we should not so readily decide that the right answer, if left unquestioned, is the best answer. Having an open mind and letting all sorts of thoughts in can lead us to a different, better place.

This sort of behavior demands a sense of humor. Humor breaths in freshness to our thinking “…humor forces you to combine ideas that are usually not associated with one another.”[1] We cannot take ourselves so seriously if we allow ourselves to laugh. Our ego, our identity, our values are easily tied to our ideas. Loosening those ties allows the flow of ideas and ultimately leads to awareness of more possibilities.

All of von Oech’s words, exercises, quotas, etc. are designed for and aimed at one thing. Specifically, he wants his readers to think creatively. Creative thinking is a tool to manage such things as paradox, contradiction, ambiguity, and just being around humans. Embracing these elements and turning them into a new way of seeing the world can lead us to news ways of thinking. By exercising our imagination and allowing the free flow of ideas, we open up the world around us; learned behavior can be shrugged off. What might be perceived as failure can be seen as taking a step closer to discovery.

Creativity has somehow, in our minds, become a commodity only owned by the few. That would mean that our natural creativity is dormant What if we twist that around, as Edward de Bono does in his book, Six Thinking Hats? How successful we are in our world depends on how well we think. When our thinking gets bogged down by the demands of the world around us, we can become confused. “Emotion, information, logic, hope and creativity all crowd in on us. It is like juggling with too many balls.”[2] De Bono sorts out our thinking to help eliminate confusion.

The six hat method of thinking brings order by bringing focus. Each hat has a definition attached to its color. More specifically, the white hat is neutral, objective by nature. The red hat, not surprisingly, takes the emotional view. The black hat is cautious and careful. The yellow hat is optimistic and positive. The green hat grows new ideas, indicating creativity, and the blue hat is all about organization.

Not only does the wearing of the hats simplify and clarify confused thinking, it can also help us to move from one place to another. The hat as a metaphor can be changed by asking an individual to take one hat off and put a different hat on. If we are stuck in the cautious world of playing it safe, we can take the black hat off and put on the red hat, giving ourselves permission to acknowledge our emotions and how we feel about something. In other words, we can look at things from different perspectives without losing sight of our goal.

The reason De Bono’s methodology works is because he doesn’t eliminate all that it means to be human and to think like a human. Rather his methodology brings order to what can be a very busy mind. We cannot be expected to give up our feelings, just as we cannot deny our logic. So it is true that we cannot give up our creativity, no matter how old we grow to be.

De Bono uses the color green for the hat we wear when we are given permission to be creative. In other words, when we wear the green hat, it is time to think in new and “provocative” ways. Anyone can wear this green hat. The green reflects growth, newness of thought, and creativity. Not only is creativity not a commodity, it is alive in anyone who dares to wear the green hat.

Just as von Oech subscribes to play and fun and foolishness, de Bono gives us permission to let go and use “the creative pause to consider, at any point, whether there might be alternative ideas. There need be no reason for this pause.” It is more a matter of the desire to find answers that go beyond being satisfactory, more than what has been done over and over again. It is a matter of stepping outside the ordinary. The risk is the same here as before…looking foolish, rubbing against the grain and challenging the old school.

In order to take the concepts of creativity off the page and into practice, I conducted a practical experiment. I invited eight people together to present the concept of lateral thinking to them and test whether it inspires creative thought.

To begin with, I wanted to prepare the members of the group to take a step in the direction of thinking differently than they were accustomed to. I wanted to create an environment that gave the individuals some time to come together through an activity in which t they could work together for a common, attainable goal. The hope was that once they worked together they would be able to take on another challenge and feel a certain level of comfort with each other. Once the participants were involved in problem solving using lateral thinking, they would have an opportunity to view problem solving through a larger window of possibilities. The participants would be asked to think differently, at least for the moment.

I invited eight participants to come to my home for activities related to my class on creativity and imagination. Seven people attended, although one of the seven arrived late. Around 6:00 pm we all gathered. After a few minutes of introduction (most of the participants knew one another), I talked about why I had asked them to attend and what they could expect.

I introduced the survey for all to complete. The survey included some demographic information along with conceptual ideas and perspective descriptions of their own creativity. We would return to these perspectives later in the evening.

As a way for the participants to get better acquainted and to get the creative juices flowing, I introduced the group activity. Because there were six participants, I had them break into two groups of three. Following is a description of the activity:

Helicopter Escape: Each group was given a packet of parts that could be put together to build a helicopter. This helicopter had to be built exactly as a replica. If anything was out of place or missing, the helicopter would be deemed by the facilitator to be unfit for flight. Each packet contained exactly what each group needed. Verbal instructions were provided by the facilitator so all could hear and they were repeated as needed and requested. The instructions were that each team must complete its helicopter so they could fly out of the jungle. They must use all the parts provided. There was a replica available for the teams to view to help them with the construction. However, only one member from each team was allowed to view the replica at a time. There was a time limit of 30 minutes to complete the activity.

Each team set about sorting out the helicopter parts. Both teams discussed how to proceed. Without assigning who would do what, each team had one person view the replica, one person following whatever directions were given, and one person who fed the parts of the helicopter to the other team members and built smaller parts of the entire helicopter. Occasionally, a team member would ask a question and information would be given when appropriate. If the facilitator could not give the information requested, the team would have to proceed on its own.

After 15 minutes I announced that there were 15 minutes left for the activity. This seemed to create a surge of energy and increased activity. More viewing of the replica was needed, and occasionally the teams had to be reminded that only one member from each team was allowed to view the replica at a time. The teams were informed when there were only five minutes left for the activity. Within those five minutes, each group brought its helicopter to the facilitator to be inspected. Both groups were told their helicopter was not fit for flight and they could not escape the jungle. Each team returned to construction and both teams built their helicopter properly to fly out safely before the 30 minutes expired.

As the facilitator, I made notes about my observations during the activity. Before we discussed how the groups performed in the activity, they asked that I give them my observations. Following are my observations:

1. Each group worked in cooperation
2. As time became a factor, each group forgot that only one member of a team could view the replica. They had to be reminded several times.
3. Each team became more competitive with the other, even though they were never told this was a competition, or that only one helicopter could escape the jungle
4. Small, friendly grumbles where heard when the facilitator informed the team that its helicopter was not fit for flight.
5. Frustration levels increased as the teams had to figure out what was wrong when their helicopter didn’t match the replica.
6. A great sense of relief was observed when each team completed the activity in time.
7. Each team had an individual who gave instructions to the others. However, one team had individuals do some role reversal when new information was introduced from viewing the replica.

I asked the teams to give their individual accounts of the activity. To begin with I asked why there was competition. The response was that they were trying to get out of the jungle before the other team. However, I never said that only one team could escape. Several members took it upon themselves to decide that this was a win/lose situation. Once I pointed out that it was not possible to win or lose, there were looks of confusion and wonder. The activity was not an exercise in who could build a better helicopter, but how all participants worked together to build their helicopter.

I commended each team on the team members’ ability to work together towards their end goal. There was obvious cooperation. Even when the rules were broken due to the stress of time, each team easily went back to working within the assigned framework. Each team was successful.

We collectively took a 30 minutes break to relax and eat pizza.

We came together again as a large group to participate in the next activity. Before beginning, I gave a small presentation on how lateral thinking is defined. Following is the definition given:

Lateral thinking is taking two seemingly unrelated concepts and finding a connection. This differs from Vertical thinking, in that it is not top to bottom thinking or orderly. Quite the opposite, Lateral thinking is more random and much more risky. With that risk, individuals can find a more creative approach to problem solving and their own vision of themselves in their life. Creativity is the outcome of Lateral thinking.

I advised the participants that they might better understand the definition as we proceeded with the next activity. The activity would be problem solving using lateral thinking. The problems would be presented to the group, one at a time, for solution.

As each problem was presented, the individuals openly tried to figure out the solution. While there might be more than one solution, I pushed the group to come up with a very specific solution. As more problems were solved, I observed that some individuals became more and more willing to take risks, while others remained quiet, and still others became increasingly frustrated. One individual became down right agitated. This individual commented that she felt stupid and was clearly upset. However, with time and encouragement she was comforted. In fact, at one point, she decided to propose a completely absurd solution and with that the group found the way to the correct solution. I reminded her of that and she seemed to feel better.

I further observed that as the comfort level increased, in that individuals felt safer taking risks, the conversation was livelier. As individuals took risks, the creativity level increased. The group began to see that by bouncing ideas off one another, they were stimulated to think beyond the more predictable Vertical thinking that would allow them to make connections. Lateral thinking, although not altogether easy and familiar, did make room for more possibilities, possibilities that may even seem ridiculous at first but ultimately lead us down a creative path.

Throughout this activity, I asked each individual to wear the green hat. What I found out was that while it may sound fun to wear the green hat, in practice it can be very uncomfortable. Vertical thinking is more familiar; it is what we know and expect. Being foolish is risky business, even in a room of familiar people.

As the participants left my door, I challenged them to use lateral thinking in their life. We all agreed that lateral thinking, in conjunction with the times one has to wear the black hat, can afford us the opportunity to think outside the box while at the same time walking the path of achievement and accountability.

After several weeks, I asked for feedback from the participants. The consensus was that for a few days to a week, each participant had the concept of lateral thinking in her mind. It came up in conversation with friends and colleagues. It was something of a novelty. However, after a week or so none of the participants was still using the concept as a part of her thinking processes. All agreed that it would take more interaction with lateral thinking concepts and exercises to maintain that kind of thinking. Problem solving never really changed, and familiar and long standing thinking prevailed. All participants enjoyed the activity and did not regret their participation.

I can conclude that in my attempt to wear the green hat, I structured an exercise that introduced new concepts, but rested on what was familiar to me. Working within a time frame and expecting others to not heed the structure is counterproductive. On the other hand, I believe it was a start. The concept of lateral thinking is excellent but it requires time to be nurtured and exercised regularly.

This exercise in lateral thinking gave me insight into how I would do things, next time. I learned that while I understand the concept of lateral thinking, I don’t practice lateral thinking and, therefore, conducted the activity from a vertical thinking perspective. The next time, I would give up the controlled structure and give the individuals freer range to decide for themselves what the answer is, and accept that there can be more than one answer that works. Breaking the group into smaller groups and then coming back together and looking at the answers that were discovered would be helpful. I realize now how ingrained the desire to have the “correct” answer is.

All the participants were positive in their view of the exercise. All participants said that they, on their own, were not able to adopt lateral thinking in the long term (more than a few weeks). Using their vertical thinking was more familiar and comfortable. An exercise like this would have to have at least one if not more follow-up sessions, with discussion on what short and long term changes, if any, occur. This type of reinforcement is necessary.

Taking this activity outside the safety of the group could prove useful. I would consider asking the individuals to take the exercise to their family, friends, and co-workers and see what results they get. Reconvening and collecting the data would reinforce the concept of lateral thinking as well as bring it to more people.

I am left with questions now that I’ve experienced lateral thinking thus far. What is my next step? If I embrace the concept of lateral thinking, how do I go about incorporating it into my everyday life? How do I go about creating an environment that supports lateral thinking?

It is clear to me that I have more research to do to gain a better, more practical understanding of lateral thinking. I consider this to include more reading and discussion around the concept. As I develop my understanding, I can then apply this thinking more deliberately in my art, my studies, and my work. While old habits die hard, persistence can see me through. My desire is to change my way of thinking to enhance my own creativity. As my thinking changes, so too will the environment around me change. I see this change as positive in my development and see it as an opportunity to tap into creativity I’ve yet to discover.

We recently held the 6th annual Camden Colloquium, which is an art show. Over the years we have lost some of the energy that makes this show very special. We were stuck in the familiar and didn’t even really know it. Three of our visual artists dropped out of the show at the next to last minute. This left us with a dilemma and feelings of wonder about the show and where we would go with it. But at the last minute, an artist came forward. Unwittingly, we found out the answer to the question, “What do cow skulls have to do with a local art show?” The answer, of course, is they breathed new life into the show. The last minute artist is a painter of cow skulls, not to mention saw blades. I couldn’t quite wrap my mind around what that meant. I reminded myself of the effort behind the show and that it was always allowed to have a life of its own, without too many hands and minds trying to control it. Due to time, I didn’t see her work until the day of the show. I was amazed. These are stunning pieces, and really gave the show a flair not before experienced. After the show the other colloquium organizer and I put our heads together. Feeling a renewed sense of purpose, we agreed to view the next show in a new light. I even spoke of lateral thinking. I know that once a new word is spoken, it can begin to find a place in everyday language.

My work life is much more of a challenge in terms of lateral thinking. In the past month, I have been named as one of the members of the Steering Committee for Regional Accreditation, as well as co-facilitator for the Student Success Committee. These are large opportunities and large challenges. These bodies have an organized structure. That is not to say that lateral thinking doesn’t have its place. Within the framework of the expectations of higher education, there is room and time to wear the green hat, even if it is tempered by the black hat of caution and Vertical thinking, in our data collection and committee work. While I am very familiar with that black hat, I have the privilege of working with creative minds that are open to possibilities.

What is even more challenging is the community of the college itself. I have observed over the past five years that the community is suspicious of change. The familiar road is safe; however, regional accreditation demands change. Making the connection to the value of regional accreditation for those who accept change grudgingly may take cosmic energy to achieve. Nevertheless, it will happen. Over the next two years, I will be in the middle of that challenge. As I work with the committees, I can see that incorporation of lateral thinking could free up the minds within this culture, giving the faculty and administrative staff a change to wrap themselves around a change that will mean something better for everyone.

If I look at my own experience and the times when I’ve actually changed my way of thinking, I realize change did not happen overnight. Even with an event that is large and has a great impact, I still had experiences that led up to the change. To alter my way of thinking, problem solving, and the way I see the world around me, I would need first to accept the possibility of change and trust the change will take me to a better place. I would need great permission to look foolish in taking the chance. Putting on a green hat, literally or figuratively, is one thing; wearing it on a regular basis takes courage along with hard work.

[1] Roger Von Oech, “A Whack on the Side of the Head,” Warner’s Books, Inc., December 1998, p. 24
[2]Ibid., p. xi.