Leading Effectively Blog

What do you see? A different kind of conversation at New York University's Wagner Graduate School for Public Service

How do we develop leadership for public service?

A number of us at CCL have the pleasure of collaborating with colleagues at the Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service at New York University. One question we have explored together is, How do we develop leadership for public service?  Wagner sees its relationship to student through this lens of leadership development. Dean Ellen Schall's addressed this year's graduating class and talked about this relationship:

"We have always understood at Wagner that it mattered how we started to engage you, even as prospective students, that we were beginning a conversation, perhaps a relationship--one that could last for years. Two years ago, when many of you applied, we decided to add a particular twist to our application, in part to get your attention, in part to signal we were after a different level of engagement. We gave you the possibility of responding to a photo, a visual image, from a collection of images developed by colleagues at the Center for Creative Leadership. As you may remember, we use Visual Explorer, which is what CCL calls this approach, at orientation as well. The basic idea is that it’s easier to get the conversation started when you have an object in the middle. And we wanted to get a conversation started."

This "twist" has worked well.

“It allows us to get a deeper sense of the applicant’s passion for/commitment to an issue, and unlocks the depth of interest in a way that is not always achievable in a standard admissions essay,” says Tracey Gardner, Wagner’s chief of staff.

This Sunday's New York Times published a slide show of the most compelling images and themes.

What does a swimming tiger suggest about public policy, or a pricked finger say about your goals?

Development of leadership in public service begins with engagement. How do you attract and engage students so that learning can be deeper? It can start with a simple question: What do you see?

"Too often," notes Ellen Schall, "applying to graduate school is transactional. We added Visual Explorer because we wanted to signal that the Wagner experience is transformational. Visual Explorer calls for people to slow down enough to reflect on their own experiences, connect their passion for public service to their professional goals, and offer their own perspectives on how to change the world."

Contact Chuck Palus at CCL Labs for more information on using Explorer Tools to create more effective and engaging surveys, and for visual support for collaborative conversations.For more information on this work at NYU Wagner click here.

The New Deities: Measurement

I was reading the headline peering out at me from the magazine being read by the woman across the aisle of our mini-jet. It was featuring an article with one of the new clichés: "You Are What You Measure."

Of course, you are a good deal more. You are also what you never measured and a certain portion of you escapes your awareness altogether. Because I'd already congratulated myself (that is, my 'unmeasured self') on missing one flight today, I granted me permission to indulge a trivial irritation. The irritation? Thoughtless deification of formerly useful bits.

Since it's already come up, take measurement, for example. In all kinds of fields (physics and psychotherapy come to mind) the fact that measuring behavior has an effect on that behavior has proven a useful idea. In human behavior, we even have a number of useful studies that can help us predict the likely effects of that measurement.

But, that's never enough. Now, business writers of all stripes dramatically warn that what isn't measured doesn't even exist. Worse, if you can't assign numbers, you have no control!  (Sorry, got a little carried away there...)

The truth is that you can increase your sense of control and are more likely to increase the occurrence of those behaviors you are caught paying attention to. In organizational contexts, you 'pay attention' to things by counting them, or weighing them, or timing them.

However, as every Ph.D. candidate* trying to get a manageable dissertation question can tell you, the stuff that's really important is really hard to measure. Often the act of identifying reasonable metrics requires serious over-simplification of the factors that affect desired outcomes.

My point (and I do have one) is that virtues deified become tyrants. Unfortunately, there's a rumor that many consultants make their living by deifying one good thought or another. In the case of measurement, I'd propose a couple of iconoclastic actions:

1. Measure things that you intend to do something about. Before collecting any data, think about the decisions, actions, policies, practices, or amusement that you hope to derive from it. Make your motto: No More Dusty Binders We Never Open.

2. Pay attention to intuition and critical thinking. Intuition is the mental application of the algorithms of experience to complex or partial information. There are things your gut knows that your brain hasn't figured out yet. 

Your monotheistic friend,

Doug

*I wasn't thinking of you.

Letting go of what isn't needed and doesn't work

President Barack Obama's choice for the newly created post of "chief performance officer," Nancy Killefer, withdrew her name from consideration. That raises some questions, but I've been thinking more about that the job even exists. 

Chief Performance Officer.

I figure it means - person in charge of making sure things get done – or else. Whoever takes on this role will scrutinize the federal budget in order to eliminate what's not needed or doesn’t work and improve the things that do work. The new position is supposed to indicate a focus on responsibility, accountability and transparency of government. Yes, we have all heard that before but I’m glad we keep trying; it isn’t easy and it is a job that is never done.

There are a lot of perspectives, often conflicting, about what “doesn’t work” looks like and how to fix it. What’s working for me, may not be working for you – and even if we agree something isn’t working – we may have different ideas about why and what to do about it. Take all those differences in perspectives, multiply them by the  programs, projects, policies, processes and everything else the government invests in and well, you’re looking at a really, really big job on which the leader is going to get a lot “feedback.”

To some extent anyone in a leadership position is expected to figure out what isn’t needed and doesn’t work (not to mention identifying what is needed and does work). Goodness knows I don’t have the answer – but I do know about something that can help: evaluation.

I’m not talking about the kind of perfunctory act that takes place after something is done and is often completed as quickly as possible. And, I’m not talking about that thing that so-and-so is in charge of – but nobody really understands or cares about.  I’m talking about a process that is inclusive and seeks to define value before money changes hands or services are rendered; something that could, should, and often does take place anywhere leadership is happening.

Early in a program, process, policy, etc. evaluative thinking prompts questions like:

• Why is this needed?
• What are other perspectives on this?
• What kind of difference will this make?
• How will we know it is working?
• How will we know what to “fix” if it isn’t working?

Asking questions slows things down – but if we’re talking about something “big” it could save a lot of money, heartburn, and/or embarrassment later. I’d rather avoid doing something that isn’t needed or doesn’t work than find out later I just wasted time, money, and probably other things.

That said, I’m all for risk-taking as long as folks know that is what they are doing. I’m willing to take a risk on something as long as it doesn’t cost too much and I’m not likely to lose something I don’t want to lose. When it comes to a medical procedure, I want to be sure it is needed and there’s evidence it works (and that it will work in my situation).  Then again, if I had an ailment rare enough to not be fully understood – I might be willing to try out an experimental treatment. As long as I know what kind of risk I’m taking – I’m cool with it. In complex and high-need situations, sometimes you have to try different things out to figure things out.

But to really benefit from – well, just about anything - someone with a keen evaluative eye should pay attention as things unfold. Asking questions like – Are things going as expected? Should we make changes in order to reach our goal? Should we change our goal? Have we learned something we can apply to make improvements? And at the end of a phase or whenever makes sense – it’s time to ask about how well something worked. Was it worth the resources? Keep in mind there may be different answers to those questions from different perspectives.