The Attrition Plan Doom Loop

If there is a universal truth in school leadership it is this: Run away from “Attrition” plans for professional staff. At best, they stop capacity building almost immediately.  At worst, they throw the organization into a doom loom.  So what is an “Attrition Plan?”  Simply put it is a staffing plan that either balances the budget or pays for a program by not replacing vacancies.  So why is that bad?

Attrition plans are bad because they violate the Whitaker Rule.  Todd Whitaker states (correctly, hence “Rule”) that the greatest asset a campus or district leader can possess is a staff vacancy.  A vacancy gives the leader the singular opportunity to hire a better employee than the one who was in the position previously.  He follows this up with the truism that there are only two ways to improve an organization:

1. Hire better people.

2. Improve your current people. 

I’ll add that any leader of a learning organization that isn’t working on both #1 and #2 concurrently really isn’t much of a leader.

Now here is how an attrition plan throws a learning organization (schools) into a doom loop.  Let’s assume you have four teacher and their skill levels are distinct, giving you an “A” teacher, “B” teacher, “C” teacher and “F” teacher. If you lose the “F” teacher you haven’t lost much in terms of talent and the rest of the teachers can probably pick up the slack with little trouble.  That is how the attrition plan is sold. But this ignores the fact that you have lost the chance to hire another “A” teacher.

But real life doesn’t work the way the plan is drawn on paper.  Of all the above listed teachers (A-B-C-D-F), which one has the greatest possibility of leaving the organization?

The correct answer is the “A” teacher.  And the reason why is that your “A” teacher has the most options.  The “A” teacher is the one most likely to get a promotion and the most likely to get recruited to another campus or district, because they have the most marketable skill set.  And where an A-B-C team may very well outperform an A-B-C-F team.  I can promise you that a B-C-F team will not.  Plus, the more “A” teachers that leave, the more likely that even more “A” and “B” teachers will leave. 

And the best description of attrition driven C-F teams is “Self-Inflicted Doom Loop.”

Which means if you are considering an attrition plan, find a better solution.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5 
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Timer (Fundamental 5 Delivery Tool); PowerWalks CLC (Networked Formative Observation Tool) 
• Upcoming Presentations: TMSA Winter Conference; ASCD Annual Conference; TASSP Summer Conference (Multiple Presentations); TEPSA Summer Conference (Multiple Presentations); NAESP National Conference 
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook

REPRINT - TECHNOPHOBIA

The following is a reprint of the post from Tuesday, September 21, 2010. For many readers, it was not delivered as an e-mail update like it was supposed to be.

A LYS Principal submits:

I have decided that in the field of education we are almost all technophobic. Educators were so resistant to putting technology into classroom instruction that Dr. Neely implemented technology implementation in the classroom as one of the observed teacher proficiencies under the PDAS teacher evaluation system. Let’s face it, when the government implements a policy or law, it is because there is a perceived problem, and the acceptance and implementation of technology in education is certainly a problem.

Not convinced? Let's consider the LYS philosophy that the alpha and omega of student expectations is adult modeling. Or, in other words, the most effective way to teach is to model. What do we model as adults for the students? Consider the cell phone. Most school districts either ban the possession of cell phones by students outright, or they allow the possession as long as the cell phones are never seen or heard. What about the faculty? Do you use your cell phone during breaks, during lunch? Is your cell phone like mine, visible on your belt? If the superintendent calls you on your cell phone, do you ignore the phone since school is in session?

Seriously, what are you modeling? Why should students not be allowed to use personal technology devices such as cell phones during breaks and lunch? Are you afraid that students may film a fight and put it on YouTube? If your decision making process is driven by fear, you aren’t leading. The act of using cell phones to record illegal activity can be addressed in policy without banning all cell phones.

Still not convinced? Let's talk about Blogs and Twitter. Many districts universally block all Blogs, including the fine LYS Blog. Can Blogs be misused? You bet, but so can Microsoft Word. But this blocking practice also blocks numerous excellent Blogs that should be available to all students. Concerning Twitter, Twitter wasn't more than 20 minutes old before school districts began amending policies to prevent Twitter. But in the real world, TEA and numerous school boards are now using Twitter as a way to communicate with the public. Yet many districts, again by blanket policy, block access to Twitter and similar sites.

So there you have it, prime examples of our reaction to new technology - form a policy to prohibit the new technology, immediately. We need to re-evaluate our stance on technology. We need to model what we truly practice as professionals. Dare I say that in a short number of years personal electronic devices may find a welcomed place in education, even in classrooms for instructional purposes.

SC Response

I have to say that you are on track. Too many of us in our field take a prison type view on technology access. Don’t let anyone have it, because they might misuse it. We might as well quit teaching kids to read and write. We need to recognize that the need to block the access and use of technology is rooted in fear, lazy practice, or both. Fear that I, the adult, might not be the source of all knowledge in my school or classroom. Lazy in the sense that to ensure that students are not harmed by or misuse the tool requires increased vigilance and ongoing conversation and coaching. Which for too many of us in our field is a dramatic change in typical practice.

As we continue to address the reality of an increasingly flat, universally connected world, I will channel the tone of Dr. Todd Whitaker advice to school leaders. “We need to create policy to support our best and brightest, not to manage the lowest common denominator.”

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Submits... Technophobia

A LYS Principal submits:

I have decided that in the field of education we are almost all technophobic. Educators were so resistant to putting technology into classroom instruction that Dr. Neely implemented technology implementation in the classroom as one of the observed teacher proficiencies under the PDAS teacher evaluation system. Let’s face it, when the government implements a policy or law, it is because there is a perceived problem, and the acceptance and implementation of technology in education is certainly a problem.

Not convinced? Let's consider the LYS philosophy that the alpha and omega of student expectations is adult modeling. Or, in other words, the most effective way to teach is to model. What do we model as adults for the students? Consider the cell phone. Most school districts either ban the possession of cell phones by students outright, or they allow the possession as long as the cell phones are never seen or heard. What about the faculty? Do you use your cell phone during breaks, during lunch? Is your cell phone like mine, visible on your belt? If the superintendent calls you on your cell phone, do you ignore the phone since school is in session?

Seriously, what are you modeling? Why should students not be allowed to use personal technology devices such as cell phones during breaks and lunch? Are you afraid that students may film a fight and put it on YouTube? If your decision making process is driven by fear, you aren’t leading. The act of using cell phones to record illegal activity can be addressed in policy without banning all cell phones.

Still not convinced? Let's talk about Blogs and Twitter. Many districts universally block all Blogs, including the fine LYS Blog. Can Blogs be misused? You bet, but so can Microsoft Word. But this blocking practice also blocks numerous excellent Blogs that should be available to all students. Concerning Twitter, Twitter wasn't more than 20 minutes old before school districts began amending policies to prevent Twitter. But in the real world, TEA and numerous school boards are now using Twitter as a way to communicate with the public. Yet many districts, again by blanket policy, block access to Twitter and similar sites.

So there you have it, prime examples of our reaction to new technology - form a policy to prohibit the new technology, immediately. We need to re-evaluate our stance on technology. We need to model what we truly practice as professionals. Dare I say that in a short number of years personal electronic devices may find a welcomed place in education, even in classrooms for instructional purposes.

SC Response

I have to say that you are on track. Too many of us in our field take a prison type view on technology access. Don’t let anyone have it, because they might misuse it. We might as well quit teaching kids to read and write. We need to recognize that the need to block the access and use of technology is rooted in fear, lazy practice, or both. Fear that I, the adult, might not be the source of all knowledge in my school or classroom. Lazy in the sense that to ensure that students are not harmed by or misuse the tool requires increased vigilance and ongoing conversation and coaching. Which for too many of us in our field is a dramatic change in typical practice.

As we continue to address the reality of an increasingly flat, universally connected world, I will channel the tone of Dr. Todd Whitaker advice to school leaders. “We need to create policy to support our best and brightest, not to manage the lowest common denominator.”

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes... (Cain's Commentary)

In response to some of my advice / commentary, a reader writes:

“I question the, ‘it's OK to be frequently wrong, but never in doubt,’ advice if you want to remain in a position of power within an organization. If you make 100 mistakes, but you demonstrate confidence in your actions and keep plowing along making mistakes, are your going to be OK?

I think you should learn from your mistakes and be wrong less frequently. Even if you show confidence that you are correct, others in the organization will lose confidence in your ability and stop following you. If you continue to plow ahead never in doubt, it indicates that you are either, incompetent, or out of touch with the reality of local control.”

SC Response
Excellent questions and points. Now, let’s talk. First, the proverb: “Great Principals are frequently wrong, but never in doubt.” This is a fundamental leadership practice and a critical nuance that even Fullan writes about. It recognizes the following duality: In complex and dynamic environments, as a leader you are forced to make decisions with incomplete information. When you do this, you will often decide wrong. If you wait too long, you will miss opportunities, also wrong. If as a leader, I know that there is a chance that my decision is wrong, and I let my team get a whiff of that, it will effect their morale and performance. If they know that I am completely confident, then they can be completely confident.

Two quick sayings that support this (both from Todd Whittaker).

1. When the principal catches a cold, the staff catches pneumonia; and

2. When you are the leader and someone asks you how things are going, the answer is always either, “Great,” or “Just like we planned.” Any other answer is a detriment to you, your team and the organization.

Now, if I know that I am frequently wrong, that means I always have to be scanning the environment, confirming data and listening to my team. That way, I can frequently adjust to maximize the effectiveness of the actions of the team. I view “frequently wrong,” as “constantly aware, aggressive and flexible.”

So you ask, “If I make 100 mistakes, yet remain confident, is that OK?”

To which I answer, it depends on who catches the mistake and when it is caught. If you and your team catch most of the mistakes early, you will fix them before anyone on the outside even knows that there might be an issue. It is amazing what you are able to figure out once you know for certain what does not work. We are in agreement, we should learn from our mistakes, but if I make 100 action oriented mistakes and you make just one, it won’t be long before I’m 100 times smarter than you are. This is one reason why the biggest leaps in the quality of our craft are now coming from schools that serve low SES students. Just to survive, the staff from those schools are forced to try and learn from their mistakes. Coasting is a career killer.

Which comes to where we disagree, you write, “If you continue to plow ahead never in doubt, it indicates that you are either, incompetent, or out of touch with the reality of local control.”

When I walk onto a campus that is in crisis, if I am not supremely confident in my ability (which I am) to get that campus turned around rapidly, in order to help students and save careers (which I do), that is a dead school walking.

Again, great questions and points, keep them coming!

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn…