Category Archives: Blog

Morale: A Wavering Variable That Can Be Improved

Posted on by
Reply

Early in my working career, a venerable mentor told me, “If you think there is a problem, there is a problem until you either resolve it or decide, with new information, that it is not a problem. Your job now is to pull up your socks and get to work.”

“I think we may have a morale problem. If we do, we need to find out how bad it is and do something about it.” Check the echoes of conversations in any work place and you will hear these words spoken at different times and in a variety of voices. It is a rare work place that does not have a residual of these echoes describing low points of organizational morale. Typically, the evaluation of morale is a second- or third-hand observation of a workplace environment triggered by a sense of a generalized feeling of workplace malaise. Verbal and body language clues may indicate that an undetermined number of people suffer from a prolonged negativity about their work or work environment. An indirect observation of a generalized feeling tone emanating from an undetermined number of people can result in this declaration. “We have a morale problem,” is not based on science; it is a perception of a perception.

Workplace morale is not the same as workplace output. Given the nature of the work, making widgets or providing a service or working on the creative edge, workplaces have measures of output or productivity. Workplaces set objective quantitative and qualitative goals for their products and services and construct metrics for measuring quantity and quality of work product. Morale is an entirely different animal because it is subjective. Finding a metric for measuring morale is parallel to considering a metric that measures love. You know it when you feel it but any effort to quantify or qualify love immediately runs afoul of what love is. So it is with morale. You know the “flavor of morale” when you sense it, but you cannot objectify it. And, morale may or may not be associated with workplace output. As much as we try to draw a linkage, high or low workplace output is not directly correlated with high or low workplace morale.

Morale is an inconstant human emotion of wellbeing. A person’s morale is a variable that rises and falls given environmental conditions. To violate the immeasurability of morale, consider a yardstick. Often, we push a yardstick vertically into fresh fallen snow to measure the depth of snow. We obtain a measured fact; five inches of snow fell within the last 24 hours. As a morale meter, view the middle of a horizontal yardstick, the 18-inch mark, as our morale neutral point. Higher numbers up to 36 indicate degrees of positive morale and lower numbers from 17 to zero indicate degrees of negative morale. If we hang our morale stick on the wall and watch it over time, we would expect normalcy to be a wavering of morale somewhere between 12 and 24 inches or rocking back and forward on either side of the mid-point. Like a barometer reading atmospheric pressures, morale changes, adjusts, re-centers and changes again and gives us a different measurement reading as wellbeing pressures are perceived. That is, if we could measure morale.

“We have a morale problem and need to do something about it,” leads to a question. What are the variables that affect workplace morale. To some extent, the variables may be as numerous as the number of employees, as each person may exude a differing degree of morale wellbeing. And, there are variables of morale wellbeing outside the organization’s control that enter the workplace. However, there are three solid concepts that affect morale, that are within an organizational reach, and that bear examination. These are engagement, respect and appreciation. These variables, unlike morale in general, can be quantified, qualified and measured. When they are on the positive end of the proverbial yardstick, each or all of these variables are associated with high morale. When each or all of these are not the negative end of the yardstick, they clearly are associated with low morale.

Daniel Pink writes in Drive (2009) that worker motivation is enhanced by three concepts of engagement. These are autonomy, mastery and purpose. He shows that workers who are positively motivated have a positive sense of well-being. Autonomy is the level of worker “self-determinism” in the work being done. Whereas, a traditional supervision of work leans toward worker conformity to routine processes, workers are better motivated when they participate in determining the schemes of their work effort. Additionally, workers are more motivated when they are provided continual training and education that leads them to be more skillful in their work. And, motivation increases when workers internalize the importance of their work. “We can affect worker autonomy.”

Engagement, whether as Pink describes it, or simply as the level of worker personal connection to the work being done, is an essential part of workplace morale. A response to “… we need to do something about it” can begin with an understanding of the degree to which workers exhibiting low morale are engaged and connected to their work. If barriers to engagement have been purposefully constructed or have arisen as unforeseen outcomes, begin to diminish those barriers. We can encourage engagement by listening to employees. Listening to their comments about their work, their complaints and their suggestions. Listening to how they “would like to see their work” managed. Listening to them as employees and as “people” we work with on a daily basis. Connecting engaged employees may mean accepting and adopting their recommendations. Real connections are made when employee contributions to work improvement is recognized and publicized. And, listening as a step toward engagement and connection is virtually a cost-free step toward moral improvement. On our morale yardstick, higher and positive morale measures are associated with the degree of worker engagement. “We can affect engagement.” “We can affect connections.”

Secondly, examine the degree of mutual respect exhibited by workers and supervisors toward each other. As Aretha Franklin sang of it in Otis Redding’s song, “Respect” means

“…R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Find out what it means to me

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Take care, TCB…”

Mutuality of respect is taking care of the people-side of business. The literature about organizational respect describes respect as a conditional and earned value and as an unconditional and granted value. Any discussion will teeter between respect being conditional or unconditional, but regardless of a discussion’s conclusion, values of mutually respectful behavior are essential for positive measurements of morale. Respect in the workplace is like the concept of connections, but it goes deeper into the worker well-being.

Environments of respect exhibit an open and mutual recognition of value. Openness is a public recognition; it is a declaration of how the work efforts of employees contributes to organizational success. Mutuality is the act of supervisors openly valuing workers and workers openly valuing supervisors. Too often, measurements of respect are unidirectional; they measure the degree to which workers perceive they are respected by supervisors. Respect in the workplace also must measure the degree to which supervisors perceive they are respected by workers. In truth, if there is no mutuality, there is no respect.

The concept of respect may be more easily observed in its absence. Disrespect often shows as interpersonal personal detachment and animosity verging on hostility. The flavor or the much characterized “water cooler” talk of a workplace indicates the presence of disrespect. Respect is openly portrayed while disrespect is a closed and oppositional behavior that works against both supervisors and workers.

On our morale yardstick, higher and positive morale measures are associated with the degree of mutual respect. “We can affect mutual respect.”

Lastly, appreciation is a necessary variable for positive workplace morale. Appreciation, or consideration, is the quid pro quo that exists between the organization and each working employee and is displayed in wages and salary and benefit programs. Pink writes that financial compensation is not an enduring motivator. A paycheck and employment benefits only meet the immediate and superficial elements of personal motivation, Pink says. However, time and experience have proved that if financial appreciation is not present on the first day of a person’s employment, that lack of appreciation will have a continuing negative affect of the employee’s morale. Appreciation matters.

Also, if appreciation and consideration are drastically altered for reasons unassociated with workplace effort, they can have a horrific effect upon worker morale. Political and economic policies have a direct impact upon appreciation and consideration. As a case in point, when Act 10 was passed in 2011, it initiated a multi-year effect upon the workplace morale of public employees in Wisconsin. State law effectively reduced worker wages and salaries and transferred the costs of specific benefits from the employer to the employee. Secondly, the Act legally ended the employees’ right to bargain for their employment’s compensation. In addition, the legislator’s annual funding of public education was slashed resulting in the loss of employment and educational programming. Subsequent state policy assured that these changes were continued each of the past six years. A result of this political manipulation is that a politically constrained level of worker appreciation has become the status quo and a constant damper upon workplace morale

Additionally, the political back story associated with Act 10 was that unionism in public employment was a direct cause of high state and local taxes. The back story went further in describing public employees as enjoying employment benefits that were uncommon for non-union workers and that the costs of these benefits were borne by all taxpayers in Wisconsin. The result was not just a financial restructuring of public employment; it also was a redefining of the way in which private employers and employees looked at public employees. Morale was sacrificed for political gain. Appreciation and consideration do matter. “We can affect appreciation and consideration.”

My mentor gave me two additional reminders about problem-solving. “Once you get your socks pulled up and get active in solving a problem, it is important to keep your socks up. Problem-solving opens may opportunities for time, people and circumstances to tug your socks down to your ankles and no one works well stumbling on his socks.” And, “Once you are comfortable with your socks pulled up, be ready to for the next problem. It awaits you.”

School Choice Is Complicated And Intentional

Posted on by
Reply

One should not accept a blatantly generalized statement as Gospel, especially any statement ladened with politico-economic overtones. Parsing a person’s motives and self-interests is an important tool for screening generalizations for truth and untruth, transferability and usability. School choice is one of those subjects burdened with so many motives and interests that every statement that begins with “I support school choice, because…” should be rephrased as “My interest(s) in supporting school choice are …” or “The school I chose has/does/provides these things for me.” Clear reasons in clear statements for clearer understanding. At the end of the day, there are good and valid reasons for school choice as long as the self-interests are known.

A discussion of school choice begins with this understanding – argument about the legitimacy of school choice is a waste of time and resources. Consumer choice has permeated almost every marketable commodity in our contemporary life. And clearly, politics has made education a marketable commodity. Given that school choice is a fact of life, the discussion no longer is whether to choose but why and how to choose and how choice affects the education landscape.

Historically, there always has been some choosing of schools. For several American centuries, children attended a parochial school affiliated with the family’s religious preference. Most frequently, these were Catholic and Lutheran parochial schools, but Episcopalians, Seventh-Day Adventists, Calvinists, Mennonites, Amish and Orthodox Jews also provided parochial education. In southern states, there are hundreds of schools affiliated with fundamentalist churches. The discussion of faith-based school choices has a history of community acceptance and only the availability of tax-funded school vouchers brings parochial schools back into the new discussion.

Equally, private schools or academies have existed over time. Sometimes organized as military schools to educate boys with structure and discipline. Finishing schools for girls taught grace and style. Elite academic preparatory schools existed for families interested in their children attending prestigious colleges and universities.

Families always have had choices. The simple and single difference between choice then and choice now is that families historically paid to make those choices. Today, public money is becoming increasingly available to fund school choice.

Today there is a bogeyman of reality in the discussion of school choice that cannot be ignored. Government at all levels enforces a “sum certain” and a “zero sum loss” equation on the use of state tax revenues available to fund education. If the equation was “sum sufficient,” the bogeyman would go away. But, education funding is never sum sufficient. Politics today says that tax money no longer is connected to funding schools; tax money is connected to funding the education of a child and whither the child goes, there goes the money. This, the bogeyman tells us, makes school choice all about the money. If a child who was enrolled in a public school enrolls in a private or charter school, the public school loses money and the private or charter school gains money. With choice, there always are financial winners and losers.

In our consumer society, we should know these things about the choosing of schools. Traditionally, parents considered the local, neighborhood when they chose their home residence. “We want this house in this school district, partly because this house is in this school district.” For some, residence and school district no longer are connected. Regardless of the location of their residence, parents can choose the location of their child’s school – these are two independent decisions. Literally, “I have the right to choose where I want to live and I the right to choose where I want my child to attend school.” The caveat in this new paradigm is that parents who choose also are parents who transport. If you want your child to attend a school out of your neighborhood, it is your responsibility to transport your child to your school of choice.

At the same time, the new options of school choice are not equally available to all children. Engaging in school choice is a parental decision. For some parents, employment and paying the bills consumes them and engaging in school choice is something they do not have the time, energy or resources to undertake. The lack of money excludes children. Or, their child’s education is not important. The lack of interest excludes children. Or, their grandparents and parents grew up in the house or neighborhood where the family now lives and everyone in their family attended the local school. The disinterest in change excludes children. Or, the family lives in a rural area where few physical schools of choice are organized and the distance between school districts makes daily transport an unrealistic endeavor. Physical location and sparsity of options exclude children. School choice is an option for more affluent, motivated, urban/suburban parents.

There also is the issue of selective acceptance that creates a significant difference in who attends a public school and who attends a choice school. Public schools educate every child regardless of educational ability and challenge. That is the law. Choice schools do not. Because they are not accountable to the same state statutes as public schools, choice schools can decline to accept students with special education needs, the socially maladjusted, and those that create disciplinary problems once enrolled. These children are the responsibility of public schools and are generally excluded from schools of choice.

It is easiest to parse the reasons for school choice for older children than it is for younger children. Simply stated, given the schooling experiences of older children and the refining of their learning styles and preferences, academic interests, and career and continuing education goals, it is much easier to match an older student with a school choice option. It is more difficult to match a younger child with little experience and unformed preferences, interests and goals. In my experience, parents who are in tune with their older children and can discern educational options reasonably available to the family make very good use of school choice. I worked with a parent whose son was a highly-gifted diver and had outgrown the resources of our school’s swimming and diving program, the local YMCA, and private coaching in our community. His interests and goals as a twelve-year old were best served by moving to Florida and being home schooled so that he could devote the enormous amount of daily time required for training as a world class diver. He never attended a K-12 school again. I watched him compete in two Olympics. School choice worked for him because a quality match of child and school was achieved. I also assisted parents of children with gifts in dance and music to extend their education in specialty schools for ballet and violin, and children with interests in science and language to enroll in magnet schools for those subjects.

It is not so apparent for very young children. I observe that school choice for children in 4K through elementary school is not an educational decision but an associational decision. Parents with the resources to engage in school choice for their very young children are deciding “who their child will go to school with” and “who their child will NOT go to school with” more than they are choosing a school that matches their child’s interests, preferences and goals. Sadly, the decision regarding “who my child will NOT go to school with” creates a re-segregation of schools based upon family ethnicity and economics. Parents choosing “who my child will go to school with” are leaving behind schools with higher percentages of educationally challenged students and schools with diminished financial resources to educate those children.

School choice is not easy. It has, as the bogeyman tells us, real implications for the financial stability of schools, both public and private. Because school finance is sum certain and zero sum loss, there will be financial winners and financial losers. For secondary students who have refined educational preferences, interests and goals, school choice is a wonderful application of American consumerism. For students whose families are not educationally engaged or who have educational challenges and disadvantages, school choice creates educational backwaters and leaves them there. School choice also is creating a greater rift between families with financial resources and aspirations and leaves families without those resources with lower aspirations.

Finally, school choice is the child of politics and it was enacted to provide advantage to families that have the resources to choose. The monied interests that created the laws of school choice knew what they were doing when they put their money behind legislation that created school choice for their state. They created new schools for their socio-economic class, not necessarily for the improvement of their community or for the advancement of all children.

If You Are Lost in the Lesson, Call a Time Out, Kiddo. It’s Okay

Posted on by
Reply

“Time out! Stop, take a breather, and let’s take a moment to talk about this.”

In many games there are signals a player can make that says “Time out!” Athletes use their hands to make a letter “T” to stop play. When actors lose their line, they stop, look to the prompter, and get their cue and proceed. When kids play tag or other run-around games, they yell “Freeze” and everybody stops cold in their tracks. Children need a time out signal in the classroom; a signal that says, “Stop the action. We need to talk about this.” Or, to extend the sports analogies, kids need a time out for a breathing space and a chance to talk over what they are learning so that they get their lesson right.

The problem is that most children think saying “time out” in the classroom means that they are dumb. If other children are not needing a time out, they must be smart enough to be learning the lesson. Hence, if I need a time out, I am not smart – I am dumb. And, no child wants to draw “look at the dumb kid” attention down upon himself. They would rather not learn than appear dumb.

At first blush, one might wonder if learning time outs really are necessary or a good thing in the management of a classroom. Should children be allowed to stop the flow of a lesson? Would they abuse the opportunity? The answer to these questions should be viewed from the student perspective. After all, causing all students to be successful learners is the outcome of interest. With student learning in mind, heck yes, allowing any child the option to pause and review what the class is learning makes a lot of sense. We know that the usual and traditional teacher inquiry asking “Does anyone have a question?” usually creates no more than silence. And, we know that waiting until after children take a quiz or test to identify what they did not learn through initial teaching is not the most effective strategy for creating successful learning. Then correct answer is this – for children and their teacher to be responsible for learning both need to have the authority to call a time out and to assure that everyone is getting the learning right.

So, we need a “no harm, no foul” classroom time out signal. Maybe something like the red towel a football coach waves or throws to request a review of the last play. Perhaps a purple card will do. Purple is a noticeable and regal color. A child could hold up or casually flash a purple card at the teacher, a simple gesture that does not draw too much peer attention to a request a review of past instruction. On seeing a purple card, if a teacher only said, “Okay, let’s pause. Tell me what you (heard, saw, known, can do) at this point,” all children would have the opportunity to consider what they heard, saw, know and can do with what they have just learned. And, if the teacher asks several children to review their learning, the teacher can make corrections and add instruction to strengthen student learning and then proceed with confidence.

From the long view, how good would it be if at the end of a unit of instruction a teacher knew that all children were ready for an assessment because there had been enough pauses to create confidence that all children had heard, saw, know and can do what was taught. Not knowing if children learned really is not an acceptable option and not having a “time out” protocol increases the likelihood that we do not have confidence in what children learned.

Give Books, A Gift Full of Rewards

Posted on by
Reply

I give books to my grandchildren as Christmas and birthday gifts. At other times of the year, I may gift them with clothing or sports equipment or something that just makes Gramps feel good to give. But, at Christmas and birthdays it is books. Books in print format; no e-books or audiobooks, although Gramps buys a lot of those for Gramps and Grandma.

My grandchildren receive books that are classics for their age as well as books that are currently trending. They receive books that are age appropriate and that push the boundaries of their vocabularies. They unwrap books of fiction, biography, as well as US and world history. I dare say these are the only print books they receive as gifts all year long. There was a time in their infancy when their parents bought them large, picture books and novelty books – books about birds and dogs and later about pooping and farting. Now that my grandchildren are in upper elementary and middle school and looking for the latest in electronics, their parents no longer buy them books. “Who wants to give a kid something the kid doesn’t want!”, I hear from my offspring. I do. So, I do. I am building breadth and depth to their knowledge base, some of which pays dividends in school. When a teacher asks, “Who knows where Patagonia is?” and most children answer, “In the clothing section at Macy’s”, my grandchildren say with assurance, “Patagonia is at the southern end of South America and is part of Argentina and Chile.”

Books. It is hard to beat the experience of reading books. Using Siri or Google as your reference is very contemporary. But, being able to say “You just crossed the Rubicon, Bud!” to a person who is unbelievably offensive speaks to being well read. What a gift.

“I Like My Teacher” Is A Measurement For School Success

Posted on by
Reply

Ask a primary school-age child about school and what do you expect to hear? Unlike their older siblings, these bright-eyed cherubs love to talk about school and they talk and talk and talk. Their most common response falls into two types: I like/don’t like school and I like/don’t like my teacher. For most children, if they like their teacher they like school and if they don’t like their teacher they don’t like school. Their conception of school is formed by the teacher/student relationship their teacher can create. It is interesting to track the “I like school/I like my teacher” responses through the years of a K-12 education. Perhaps the most significant contributor to school success returns to the youngest child’s response – I like my teacher.

We measure many things in the name of educational accountability. An accountability measurement requires the use of a metric – some reliable gauge that indicates the degree and consistency to which the variable of interest is being attained. Standardized test scores come to mind. “I like my teacher” may seem like a soft subject for measurement or one that is too whimsical to provide meaningful results. “Ask again tomorrow and the little kid will give you a different answer,” a skeptic may say. But that would be a wrong impression and conclusion and cause us to avoid seeing that the bond between teacher and student is the highly significant contributor to school success that it is.

The American Psychological Association gives us several things, derived from academic studies, to consider.

• Students with close, positive and supportive relationships with their teacher will attain higher academic achievement than students who do not. They have higher school attendance, are more willing to engage in new learning, and to persist through difficulty.

• Students without close, positive and supportive relationships with their teacher seldom attain higher academic achievement, have higher rates of school absenteeism, are less willing to participate in new learning, and tend to shut down when frustrated.

• Attempts to manipulate aspects of a neutral or negative teacher and student relationship will not reliably cause improvements in academic achievement.

http://www.apa.org/education/k12/relationships.asp

The conclusion I reach is this and it is one that every little kid knows down deep: “I know if my teacher likes me and I really like it when my teacher likes me.” Try as one might, this “liking” can’t be faked. Kids know it. Interestingly, “liking” does not look the same teacher to teacher, because it is part and parcel of the character of each teacher. As unique and different as they might be, every time I have observed a close, positive and supportive relationship between a teacher and student, the outcomes are the same. Kids are demonstrably engaged in their learning, kids are demonstrably achieving their curricular goals, and kids are demonstrably developing an enthusiasm for future learning. Teachers who can cause these relationships are worth their weight in gold.

A kindergarten teacher I observed was a “kid magnet.” She bubbled with affect everyday. Her classroom was activity-rich and she was a cheerleader for everything a student tried. She celebrated loudly and happily when any child was successful and when a child missed the mark, she was constant with “let’s try that again, together”. While building learning self-esteem, she also created a consistent record for causing every child to be ready for first grade reading and arithmetic and many performed well beyond first grade. She was no faker of “I like kids” and all her kids knew she liked them for who they were. It was easy to track her K-graduates throughout elementary school because of their “I like school” behaviors.

Another teacher, in first grade, was a teacher’s teacher. She attacked teaching for learning everyday. She came to school early and stayed late and her classroom was purposeful. When she sat with a child, she listened and watched first and taught second and her teaching always was spot-on for what the child needed to know or do or consider to be successful in that activity. Kids did not bask in her smile because she did not smile a lot; they basked in her attentive presence and praise. When she said “good job” it meant “success achieved.” She was no faker either. Kids knew that she gave them her best everyday to help them be successful and liked her for it. It was easy to track her first graders throughout elementary school because their “I like school” behaviors were ingrained.

Caring, positive and supporting teachers don’t just live in the elementary school. A high school chemistry and physics teacher, the only teacher of these subjects in the school, gave her students a rigorous, college-preparatory instruction and kindled a “my teacher cares about me/I like my teacher/I can learn chemistry and physics” attitude in her students. She was firm as a rock in demanding that students did every homework and lab assignment. “Miss one and fail the course” was her rule. Yet, they knew she was in her classroom every morning before school and every afternoon after school to help them not just do the assignment but learn from the assignment. Some of her personal mannerisms caused teenagers to snicker, but when asked “Who is your favorite high school teacher?”, she topped most lists. She did not teach fluff and did not tolerate bad behaviors and students respected and venerated her for it.

In contrast, an intermediate grade teacher taught reading and arithmetic and science not children and her kids knew it. Lessons were planned and executed and children received instruction but there was no real “I care about you” or “I will do everything in my power to help you” in present I her classroom. When kids said “I don’t get it” they heard from the teacher’s desk “Well, try it again.” It may have been that long division and fractions were more difficult to learn than addition and subtraction and that reading science was not like reading to learn sight words, but the absence of a caring, positive and supportive relationship only made learning her grade level curriculum even more difficult. She created distance, not closeness. And, kids knew it. It also was easy to track her former students through their pre-Algebra and beyond math courses. Too many of her students had a skills and concepts deficit that would take a significant teacher and student recommitment to learn what should have been learned to overcome their lack of grade level achievement.

Theories of psychology help to explain the connection between “I like my teacher/I like school” and school success. Psychologists tell us that “attachment” between a student and teacher causes a child to want to please the teacher and that success in pleasing extends itself to subsequent school activities. They tell us that students learn school success through social cognitive modeling and that success in watching and following others who are successful, especially teachers, causes a positive bonding. And, that self-esteem theories, the “when I feel good because I have…”, are strong factors in developing positive and supportive relationships between teachers and students.

Whatever the reason, the outcome of an “I like my teacher” attitude is inarguable. Teachers who elicit an “I like my teacher/I like school” response from children cause these children to be successful students.