Great Hollywood Teachers

Dead Poets SocietyWhat great movies about teachers come to mind? Dead Poet’s Society, Mr Holland’s Opus, and, strangely enough, School of Rock are some that people mention to me, and all have a consistent theme or storyboard:

  1. Students with some sot of disengagement, or social or other disadvantage
  2. Most, if not all other teachers not connecting, caring or (most importantly) believing in the said students
  3. The eccentric, out of the box or even accidental teacher believing in, listening to, challenging and  yet unconditionally respecting the students
  4. Hitherto disengagement is replaced with inspiring outcomes

As Hollywood as this is, it is a formula still replicated in schools around the world. By enlarge, and in spite of working as hard as ever, large numbers of teachers are crunching curriculum crowding, battling behaviour and facing decreasing time resources.

This is not the fault of teachers: indeed, school systems currently act to disengage teachers from students what with the intensity of curriculum measurement and accountability. Still, about 5% of teachers are able to replicate the Hollywood greats with a strong sense of presence and connection with students. Listening to, unconditionally respecting and believing in students.

It’s more than a shame that it remains so few – it’s a tragedy. Our world is starving for engagement, for engagement is the key to managing the complex and time-critical learning needed in our fast changing (and seemingly, degrading) world.

The Ten Best Questions for Growth or Change

10 Best Questions for Reflection, Clarity, Insight and Growth

The list of questions below are proven questions to help another person, or yourself, find reflection, clarity and insight around an issue. The intention is to show the general structure of these questions as examples, rather than ‘exact’ questions that you would quote verbatim. Shape them to your needs as required, considering the content and context.

You can use these questions as individual points of reflection, or as a sequence.

  1. If things were perfect tomorrow (with regard to the issue), what would be different (in what you see and how you feel)?
  2. What aspects of this situation are you happy with?
  3. How would you rate your effectiveness/satisfaction here, say out of 10?
  4. What rating would be pleased with, or would help you meet the current challenge?
  5. What do you need to do to move towards your preferred/needed rating?
  6. How is your current thinking or feeling impacting on the outcomes, results or goal?
  7. What thinking or feeling do you need to have to meet your goal(s) or challenge?
  8. What learning emerges for you (either from your experience, the situation or these questions)?
  9. What are the implications for your next steps?
  10. What are your next steps or actions?

Bonus Question Group: Johari Question Set

Based on the Johari Window concept, the following four questions are powerful and can be asked in many contexts (reflection, conflict management:

  1. How do I see myself? (skills, behaviour, attitudes, thinking)
  2. How do others see me?
  3. How would I like to be seen?
  4. How do I need to be to be effective? (or to find resolution, or to meet the challenge)

Ten ways to kill a conversation …

argumentThere are many ways that we can disengage another buy applying conversation-killing habits. Oftentimes we don’t even know that we have reduced the engagement. The secret element of connection with another person is attention. Not just any attention – authentic attention on them for them.

Each of the conversation killers listed below act in some way to drain your available attention, or allow you to use the available attention for yourself, not the other person.

Killer #1: Distraction: attention on your own thinking, activities or needs.

Killer #2: Assumption: assuming where the conversation is going, what they need or finishing sentences for them.

Killer #3: Judgement: making value judgements on them, their thinking or actions

Killer #4: Interruption: not allowing them to finish

Killer #5: Not listening to them: listening for your chance to say something, listening to yourself

Killer #6: I have the answer: a common form of assumption

Killer #7: You must be wrong: a common form of judgement

Killer #8: Total Control: you need to steer where the conversation goes

Killer #9: Dominate: you do more talking than listening

Killer #10: Focus on yourself: you are more concerned for your outcomes than theirs

Ways to combat these conversation killers can be found in the book “The Success Zone“.

The irony of influence…

bigstockphoto_Barack_Obama_3815808Most people I know would like to think that they are influential. Anything from being able to influence the decisions of their children to wanting to influence whole populations. You may not want to be a President or Prime Minister, but what would being able to influence others more effectively be worth to you? How would it change your world?

The thing is, the more you try to influence, the less you actually influence. Influence is passive, not active. It emerges more from who you are and what you do (which stems from who you are) than what you say. Take, as an example, the person who has influenced me most this year. Matt Church is a Sydney based entrepreneur, author and public speaker. His message, his content is first class. His influence comes not from the quality of his content, but his attitudes and behaviours. Indeed, his content is validated by his authenticity. Through this combination of a powerful message and high integrity, I learn much more than his content. I learn from his generosity, from his family and community orientation, and I learn from his commitment to adding value to others.

Your most influential teacher will have had this dual ‘channel’ of connection: great content/content delivery and great people engagement skills. Like Matt, the clarity of integrity allows them to listen, believe in, unconditionally respect (or love) and challenge. One of the quickest and most effective ways to create ‘influence capital’ with others is to listen well. We use optimistic and observational listening as training models to help others re-learn their listening skills for greater influence.

Influence can only be achieved by consistency, integrity and unconditional respect. Trying to influence is really only coercion. Are you a coercer or an influencer?

The Success Zone publishing updates

The Success Zone

The Success Zone

Our new book, “The Success Zone” is in its final processes of publishing and should be available for sale later this month (Oct 09).

Pre orders are available at http://www.gr8education.com/book/thesuccesszone.html

Like/dislike and successful organisations

A successful leader creates the conditions for others to succeed. People are most able to succeed – and acquire the skills they need to succeed – when they are in a mind state of optimism, collaboration, creativity and growth. Of course, organisations can be successful with only a proportion of their people being successful (an 80:20 rule comes to mind – 20% of the people account for 80% of the success). Organisations are more successful, and perhaps more importantly, more resilient, the higher the proportion of people within them who are successful.

Leaders are critical in creating this successful mind state in their employees and they do so by how they engage with each one, some directly but most indirectly. An employee moves into this mind state when they are accepted, believed in and listened to by others, and critically by their leaders.

Acting against this are two interesting and well documented phenomena about positions of power. The first is that when people are in positions of power they find it hard to see the needs and actions of the people who are below them. The second is that people below them see with startling clarity everything that their leaders do and say, this is sometimes known as hyper vigilance.

This comes to the main point. Most leaders, like most adults, will have people they like, people they are indifferent to and people they dislike. Most effective leaders would say that they are polite and open to each group but spend more time with the people that they like. From the point of view of creating a successful organisation, it would make more sense for leaders to spend time with people who need their time (irrespective of whether they like them or not) but the first point above indicates that it is quite hard for a leader to know who needs their time. The second point above indicates that people below the leader will know with clarity who the leader cares about and who they don’t care about. Those the leader cares about will tend to be more successful, the others will be less successful or even fail.

It is worth exploring where like – and its opposite dislike – comes from. Essentially they come from three main sources: memories laid down in early childhood, projection of things we like/dislike about ourselves or associations with real experiences that we have had.

The first may need some explanation, explicit memory only begins after about 2 years old so we spend the first 2 years of our lives laying down emotional memories that are unlinked to explicit memories. What this means is that we can have a strong negative emotion because someone made a loud noise next to us as a baby. The fact that this person had certain facial characteristics can mean that thirty years later we can see similar facial characteristics and our memory triggers a negative emotion and we interpret this as dislike for the person.

In each of these cases the negative feeling that arises comes out of memory – not from the other person – and in certain mind states will trigger a cascade of further emotion. As people – and particularly as leaders – we can ignore the negative emotions and engage with a person completely as a person, and importantly, with practice we can learn to do this automatically, with little conscious effort. This allows us to engage with everyone on an even keel and determine whether they need our time or not. Thus we can extend the number of people we are helping to succeed.

Tweeting in the Blue Zone …


Imagine we are meeting for the first time. We shake hands, leaning in slightly towards each other and smiling as we do so. We scan our faces for social connection, see all the right signals, and feel good about the connection.

Then, as you withdraw your hand, you see my business card in your palm, “free product, visit my site…”
How would you feel? Do you still feel as good about the connection?
My guess is that you might feel disappointment, some sense that the engagement was disingenuous. My money is on you not feeling more positive about me. I’d also bet that most folk would never consider this as a successful social strategy.
So how is this different on Twitter? Twitter seems to respond in parallel to many of the face-to-face social cues: those who are successful on Twitter seem to listen, to engage, to ask questions and show affiliation and generosity. All hallmarks of socially successful and influential people. Blue Zone folk. Yet the business card in the hand on introduction abounds. How often do you get an auto direct message on follow that offers you something, or directs you to a url?
I understand the strategy and the urge, yet I also see and hear some contempt for such practices. I have my own preferences, but more than professing these, I am interested in the answers to a few questions:
1. How do you feel when you receive such direct messages?
2. As the recipient, do these messages work in driving your clicks to urls and offers?
3. As the sender, how effective is this in bringing new clicks into your sites ?
What do you think then?
Creative Commons Image attributed to http://www.flickr.com/photos/ooohoooh/1350774613/ with thanks