EXCELLENCE & ETHICS

Updates from matt-d RSS

• 

  Intentional Culture: The Key to Improving Efficiency & Effectiveness

  Matt Davidson posted in Character Blog at 4:27 pm on September 19, 2011 | 0 Permalink | Reply
  

  September and January are two months in the year when I feel called to pause and reflect on my efficiency and effectiveness, both personally and professionally. These are times for me when I find myself performing an audit of what I do and how I do it, asking myself the familiar Dr. Phil question, “How’s that working for you?” In this audit-mode I am looking at inputs and outputs; I am trying to look across my life portfolio and seek out what’s working well, and what are the areas where I am losing time and energy. I’m trying to get back in control of things, to be proactive in my behaviors and rituals, not reactive, so that I don’t run around like a fire-fighter trying to stamp out little fires that threaten to engulf my productivity and peace of mind.

  I’m not sure if it is worse now than at previous historical times; I’m not sure if technology is to blame for the problem or what we should look to for the solution; but I am convinced that individuals and organizations are maxed out, stressed out, pressed for time, short on resources, and challenged to achieve greater results with less. This reality often means that our first instinct is to think that there isn’t time to reflect on what we do and how we do it; we have to go hard, go fast, go now.

  I get it; I really do. As a father of four, the head of an organization, as a person involved in  church, community and my kids’ school, I get it. We don’t have the time or resources we need to do what we want to do, the way we ought to do it. But, this is in fact, the very reason why we have to continuously establish and recover intentionality in our lives. INTENTIONALITY: there’s no more important concept, for achieving your goals with efficiency and effectiveness. Why do we do what we do, when we do it, in the way we do it?—if you’re not sure of the answers, slow down for a minute to recover some intentionality and watch your efficiency and effectiveness improve.

  This is at the center of work at the Institute for Excellence & Ethics—shaping intentional culture. Culture is generally defined as the shared values, beliefs, and operational norms of a group or organization. It’s a shared way. Leaders shape culture by establishing and reinforcing the shared norms and organizational habits. It is in and through your shared organizational habits that individual habits are shaped. As Aristotle put it, “Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit. It is what we are repeatedly lead to do.”

  Whether you hold the title “leader” or not, you are a leader. In some part of your life, in some portion of your day, you are a leader, whether you’re a teacher, a coach, a parent, a spouse, an employer or employee. As the head of your group you have the opportunity (and responsibility) to repeatedly lead those in your group to do things your way; if you lead them to repeatedly and consistently do things your way they will in turn develop habits as a result. It takes time and energy; but you can either spend time intentionally shaping the culture to develop the positive habits needed for the realization of your core mission, or spend time reactively responding to the negative behaviors shaped by the unintentional de facto culture—what John Dewey called “mis-education” or “collateral learning.” (Sounds like: “No, not like that, like this.” “Not that way, this way”).

  Pick a classroom, family, team, or organization that stands out to you for its exceptionality, and you will invariably find great intentionality regarding their organizational habits—they
  do things a very specific way, for a very specific reason. There is also intensity: deliberate guided education and practice promotes fidelity; commitment of resources (especially time), and strong accountability leads to widespread buy-in ensuring that the shared norms are pervasive throughout the organization—not relegated to “pockets of excellence.”

  Intense and intentional cultures leave a mark on the individual; as the sociologist Gerald Grant described it, these are cultures that “imprint.” It’s not just that they technically
  or functionally fulfill their core mission, but rather that the organizational habits—how
  they fulfill their core mission—are done with such intensity and intentionality that a distinctive organization mark is transferred onto the individual, which is evident in their personal habits (i.e., character). For example, a school culture that imprints certainly fulfills its core mission to transfer knowledge from teachers to students; but, in an intentional culture of excellence and ethics there is significant attention paid to developing the character and culture needed for the general philosophy and specific pedagogy,paying as much attention to how we do things, as to what we do.

  The key to shaping intentional culture is developing and regularly renewing your foundational rituals and routines. Thoughtful rituals and routines are so important because they operationalize our espoused values and ensure that they are in fact lived reality—and they do so in an efficient and consistent way. So, If you espouse a commitment to trust, respect, teamwork, and collaboration, and see these as essential to accomplishing your core mission, then you can’t leave it to chance your group will figure out how to live these out in the context of your shared work together. Therefore, you need to define HOW you do things so that those animating values are experienced. The espoused values must be linked to clearly defined operative verbs. For example, espoused value: trust. Operative verbs to define: communicate like this, negotiate like this, work in groups like this, solve problems like this, etc. What we believe must be linked to intentional norms for HOW we will live.

  Defining what we do and how we do it will contribute to overall efficiency and effectiveness. In an effort to be more intentional, consider the following: Can you identify and describe the
  “signature practices”—those strategies, norms, or organizational habits that render on your group members the “distinguishing marks” (i.e., character) of the classroom, family, school, team, or organization? Not a list of things you do (we eat together, we have an awards ceremony, we go away together, etc.), but a description of HOW what you do is done with intensity and consistency so that they result in a set of shared ideas, beliefs, and habits that uniquely impact and define their group.

  Ask yourself this around any ritual or habit of your group: “how does doing this, this way, help us to more fully realize our mission and goals?” List the practices of your group and ask
  yourself, “why do we do it this way?” And, “is there anything we could change or improve to that would add intentionality so that we better reach our goals?Look across your organization or group and ask yourself: “What are the areas where we are routinely expending resources to reactively respond to problems, inefficiencies, and inconsistencies?” “What habits have begun to detract from their intended purpose and the core organizational philosophy and goals?” “What lived habits and behaviors conflict with or are in tension with their espoused value (e.g., we are doing this to build trust, but it’s being done in a way that actually undermines trust)?”

  If indeed, “we are what we are repeatedly lead to do,” then we must examine our rituals and routines to ensure that they contribute to (and do not detract from) our core mission, shared
  values, and stated goals. As Tom Lickona put it, “you must practice what you preach, but you must also preach what you practice.” What do we do? Why do we do it this way? Why is doing it this way better than the other ways? If you don’t know the answers to these questions, or the answers aren’t convincing to you or those you lead, it’s not the end of the world. Intentional culture is not a destination; it’s an ideal to strive for. However, reconsidering and reformulating the what, why, and how of your rituals and routines can pay huge dividends towards becoming more efficient and effective in achieving your goals.

   

  

   

  Reply Click here to cancel reply.

  Name (required)

  Email (required)

  Web Site

   
• 

  Tiger Parenting and the unfortunate polarization of parenting styles

  Matt Davidson posted in Character Blog at 12:57 pm on January 28, 2011 | 0 Permalink | Reply
  

  Unfortunately all of the media attention in the last several weeks on “Tiger Parenting” has polarized the discussion regarding the role of parents to wrongheaded extremes.  On the one hand it makes no sense to argue for the hyper-competitive, my kid can top your kid, psychological hazing that views kids as a resource to be developed and exploited. I have never met a person who was raised in this environment that I trusted as a colleague or respected as a person. Invariably this approach results in a selfish, temperamental prima donna lacking essential interpersonal skills for being a good team member, and lacking courage and grit in the face of challenge. It may seem like tough love designed to prepare kids for the “real world”, but in reality it’s a lethal combination of human neglect and overt coddling resulting in a cat without claws that is at the core soft and insecure.

  On the other hand, I see no evidence to argue for the opposite extreme, creating a young person who is removed from preparation for independence in the real world by essentially giving the child license to not work hard, fend for themselves, or do basically anything that they do not want to do. I’m all for preserving childhood—by which I mean, monitoring media, preserving unstructured play, not over scheduling, not trying to join or compete to keep up with other kids, and fundamentally nurturing your child’s unique talents and gifts without comparison to others.  

  However, I don’t’ see evidence that a child raised in this environment built to accommodate the child’s learning style, dietary likes, sleep preferences, and leisure priorities produce anything but a selfish, self-centered person.  They come to believe that the world and all those around exist to make their life enjoyable and satisfying. Teacher is too tough, switch classes. Coach challenges you to develop your weaknesses, switch coaches—or sports.  Boss needs you to work over vacation, quit—and get the money from your folks.  The result of this extreme is again a cat without claws incapable of existing outside of the safety and resources of the environment created by parents. (This may explain why today so many young people now return the safety of home—or who survive “on their own” with underwriting from home).

  This is the truly unfortunate part of the polarizing discussion that has, in my opinion, resulted from Chua’s work on Tiger Parenting: it has entrenched parents on opposite ends of equally wrongheaded approaches to developing the excellence and ethics needed for success in school work and beyond. 

  Here are 5 suggestions, offered as different vision for parenting, drawn from our work on developing Intentional Cultures of Excellence and Ethics:

  1. Love your children as an end, not a means. Don’t see in them as a scholarship. Don’t use them to achieve your hopes and dreams—past or future. Don’t play them as pawns in your game of social climbing and competition.  Love them—with their unique personalities and temperaments, with their unique talents and abilities, and with all their unique character strengths and weaknesses.
  2. View life as resistance training.  Developing the mind, body, & soul of a child is fundamentally about developing muscles.  Consider your job as teacher and coach one of structuring just the right amount of resistance to keep your child’s muscles in a healthy tension, so they grow, develop, and are prepared for greater challenges. Don’t hurt them by piling on too much; don’t hurt them by taking the weight off every time they sweat or complain or hurt. Is this teacher or coach or boss hurting my child? Or are they stretching their muscles?  If they are hurting them intellectually, physically, or emotionally by all means it is your duty to intervene. But if your child is simply unhappy, uncomfortable, or simply unfamiliar with the way their muscles are being challenged, support them, encourage them, stay close to them—but don’t rescue them.  Viewed as resistance training, helicopter parenting and Tiger Parenting are equally detrimental to development. It’s not about being mean or tough, easy or loving; it’s about promoting development. Promoting development requires knowing when and how to change your style and approach given the particular child and situation.
  3. Stop looking at the scoreboard at the game and start paying attention to practice field.  Too many parents are looking at the outcomes and wishing and hoping and worrying.  Forget about the grades, the test scores, the final score or final standing.  It’s not that those outcomes don’t matter. They do. But what matters more are the habits for excellence that you are creating each day. The research on deliberate practice (and lots of other very solid research on talent development, motivation, and the cultivation of expertise) indicates that if we teach our children to practice with focus, intensity and consistency, if we teach them to find the will to start and the grit to stick with it, if we help them seek capable coaching and constructive critique—then our children will (1) reach their potential for excellence, (2) do just fine as measured by the “scoreboards of life”.  Replace “did you win?” “did you beat?” and “how do you rank?” with “Did you do your best?” “Did you improve and grow?” “Did you push outside your comfort zone?”. The rest will take care of itself.
  4. Form in your children an ethical conscience and a conscience of craft.   In writing on the formation of conscience, Thomas Greene introduced these distinctions; our children need both. Our current economic struggles are a perfect storm of poorly formed ethical conscience—greed, selfishness, irresponsibility, dishonesty—and poorly formed conscience of craft—shoddy craftsmanship, lack of work ethic, lack of thrift, creativity, and entrepreneurship.  The three A’s of performance and moral character (originally in our Smart & Good Report) provides a self- inventory to help ensure that we develop an ethical conscience (an internal sense of right and wrong) and a conscience of craft (and internal sense of what it means to do our work well).
  5. Develop the whole person. It’s an over-used cliché—but it’s still true.  So many years ago Aristotle argued that happiness was the goal of a life well lived.  Regardless of the parent, I truly believe that happiness is what they desire for their children.  However misguided their processes, this is their desired outcome.  In order to help our children achieve happiness we must build in them a diversified portfolio of assets:  they need to be able to develop positive and productive relationships; communicate and collaborate with efficiency and effectiveness; manage priorities and stress; commit to high standards and continuous improvement; demonstrate emotional intelligence, integrity and responsibility; exhibit creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving; lead and serve others; and, live a balanced, purposeful, and fulfilling life.  

   The single greatest thing we can do for the educational and economic prosperity of this country is to raise our children well.  All the talk of Tiger Parenting brought the discussion back to the forefront; I hope that it does not distract and polarize.  We simply must recommit, beginning at home, with a commitment to intentionally building the culture of excellence and ethics.  

  

   
• 

  The case FOR competition

  Matt Davidson posted in Character Blog, Character For & From Sports, Excellence & Ethics in Business, Intentional Family Culture at 2:12 pm on January 13, 2011 | 2 Permalink | Reply
  

  A recent article in Ed Week’s teacher magazine argued for putting the kibosh on classroom competition, citing numerous ways that it was harmful to the classroom climate and individual psyche.  In response to that article, I’d like the make the case FOR competition—a case we originally made in the Smart & Good Report (page 19), which was informed by my previous work with David Shields and others at the Mendelson Center for Sport, Character, and Culture at the University of Notre Dame.

  I’ll only add the following the following points to what we originally wrote:

  1. Our work in schools and with sports teams since the time of the report’s publication  only reinforces our belief in the importance of competition as a valuable opportunity for building moral and performance character, for overall engagement, and enhanced achievement.  In particular we have found in our work with high school students that their engagement increases exponentially in an assignment or activity when there is an element of individual or team competition.
  2. The key to using competition to develop the culture and character of excellence and ethics is our intentionality in its use.  We must have a rationale for its use and what we hope to develop from it, and we must focus on teaching the moral and performance character NEEDED FOR competition.  If it is misunderstood, poorly designed, and left unmonitored completion can run amuck and lead to problems; but that shouldn’t surprise us, nor does it suggest that competition is the problem.

  The devil is clearly in the details when it comes to discussion and use of competition. I’m hoping that re-sharing what we wrote in S&G helps to provide some useful guidelines in the use of competition.

  —————————————————————————————————————————-

  The Case for Competition:

  5 Ways It Can Aid the Development of Performance Character & Moral Character

   At first glance, especially when there’s plenty of evidence that students cheat to get ahead academically, athletes use steroids to break records, and companies bend and break the rules to beat their competitors, the very nature of competition might seem to be antithetical to the development of performance character and moral character.  Because of the all-too-common cut-throat competition, many see competition as a necessarily war-like relationship: I win only when you lose, all means are justified, and only one thing ultimately matters—winning.  In this view of competition, all individuals—even classmates and teammates—are adversaries vying for limited external rewards (e.g., grades, playing time, promotions, championships, etc.).

  However, this notion of competition as inherently adversarial is really a corruption of competition’s root meaning.  In Latin, “com-petere” means “to strive with.”  In this original meaning, we compete with each other, not against one another.  We achieve our individual best through the challenge and support of others: I realize my personal best (which doesn’t necessarily mean I win) when your best effort pushes me to excel beyond what I would have achieved in isolation.  In this way, competition is an extension of a community that supports and challenges.

  At every level of performance competition, new levels of excellence are achieved when participants find good competitors.  Clearly, in any competition, we are striving against our personal limitations and against the marks set by other competitors. However, the goal should not be simply to win, but to pursue excellence. If schools want to foster, across all areas of school life, a culture of positive competition that promotes the pursuit of excellence and avoids the dangers of destructive competition, they must establish supportive institutional structures (and eliminate negative ones) and work to cultivate in students a positive perspective on competition.  What follows are 5 ways for young people to understand competition as having great potential to support their development of performance character and moral character:

  (1) Competition gives me unique opportunities to develop my performance character and moral character.

   (2) Being a good competitor requires that    I develop the self-understanding and skills for managing the powerful emotions and potential pitfalls of competition (e.g., stress, frustration, resentment of others, anger at perceived unfairness).

   (3) Competition is a partnership, a form of cooperation between competitors where I show respect and care for the other by agreeing to play fairly and give my personal best so as to bring out the best in others.

   (4) Seeking out good competition is a chance for me to realize a level of excellence I would not achieve in isolation; winning and losing are less important than whether I give my best effort and learn or master something that contributes to my pursuit of excellence.

   (5) The outcomes of any given competition can serve as a benchmark in my quest for excellence; engaging in post-competition reflection allows me to analyze what worked well, what improvements are necessary, and what next steps should be taken.

  

   
• 

  What research says about the link between character competencies and college and career readiness

  Matt Davidson posted in Character Blog at 12:32 pm on January 4, 2011 | 3 Permalink | Reply
  

  The centrality of excellence and ethics, performance character and moral character, for success in school, work, and beyond, which has been the hallmark of our work at IEE, was again on display in research highlighting the link between character dispositions and college and career readiness.  In this recent Ed Week article researchers at Michigan State found that:

  “the biggest predictor of success is a student’s conscientiousness, as measured by traits such as dependability, perseverance through tasks, and work ethic. Agreeableness, including teamwork, and emotional stability were the next best predictors of college achievement.” 

  I believe this study is one of many indicating that what we call moral and performance character are inextricably linked to success in school, work, and beyond.

  One can look to the work of Anders Ericcson and colleagues and their work on expertise and expert performance, Daniel Pink’s work on drive, Carol Dweck’s work on mindset, Angela Duckworth’s work on grit, and so many more like these for what I truly believe is overwhelming evidence linking character competencies and success in all phases of life.   So shouldn’t this knowledge change the priorities of schools and organizations?  Shouldn’t this knowledge lead to a transfer of at least some of the weight of our personal and organizational energies to developing these essential character competencies?  Shouldn’t knowledge like this change policy and pedagogy? 

  Unfortunately, knowledge rarely changes behavior.  It’s the time of New Year’s resolutions, right?  How many people will stop smoking, lose weight, exercise, drive slower, put down their phones in the car, etc. etc. etc.?  There are so many things that solid research and practical experience tells us we should do; but that doesn’t mean we change our behavior.  So, what’s the problem?  If we know that developing things like hard work, perseverance, work ethic, teamwork leads to school and career readiness (and I would call it, “preparation to flourish,” more so than “readiness”) then why aren’t we developing it?

  Here are a few thoughts based on our experience:  first, most would argue (in spite of the evidence to the contrary) that WE ALREADY DO THIS. My goodness, if I had a dime for every time I heard a principal, teacher, coach, parent, or business leader say, “Oh yeah, we do that. We develop those skills.”  Even though we point out, they have no data on these outcomes to support their claims, and their success measures show plenty of room for improvement.  There’s some about character and culture that leads people to think “we do that,” which is closely linked to a second commonly held belief that “YOU CAN’T MEASURE THIS STUFF.”  It’s so much easier to argue, “we do this” when you’re basing that belief on intuition instead of evidence.  The truth is we can measure character and culture. Our Culture of Excellence & Ethics Assessment (and shorter CEEA Inventories) provides one such measure that can be a vital part of a comprehensive assessment system.

  This may surprise some to know, but based on our experience, we have not found a high school in America with systematic data on the character and culture of excellence and ethics.  In other words, high schools in America may claim to “educate the whole person” and to develop the social, moral, and performance character needed for success in school, work, and beyond, but the only evidence they site in support of these claims are disciplinary data (which frankly report the absence of problems not the presence of assets) test scores and college admissions.  When you consider the graduation rates from post-secondary institutions, I’m hardly persuaded.  (In fact most high schools report college admissions, not college graduations—who gets in, not who gets through—data that is obviously fairly easy to gather).  I hate to be jaded, but in this case, the absence of data on these essential character and culture outcomes protects everybody from having to spend the time and money to address the problem.  

  Which are, by the way, the two very next things that are cited as preventing schools and organizations from addressing the gap in dispositions for success as indicated by the college and career readiness research: WE DON’T HAVE THE TIME OR THE MONEY.  So, in our pitch to schools, we challenge them a bit and they concede they don’t have data to defend that “they’re already doing this” and that their college and career readiness indicators are, well, not  convincing, they immediately go to the “we simply don’t have time or money.”  Now, on the one hand, we’ve worked with enough schools to take them at their word. In many schools the schedule is so tight students don’t have a lunch period. Many teachers are doing 4-5 preps and teaching hundreds of students.  There are so many passing mandates, so many unfunded mandates, so many fads and get rich quick schemes that have come and gone, that it’s hard to believe that something that is simple (yet not easy), timeless (and yet backed by convincing, current research) could provide a solution to enhancing success in school, work, and beyond. All that to say, the time and money “excuses” aren’t always an excuse—they’re a real barrier to addressing these needs. 

  In other instances, however, “we don’t have time and money” are in fact excuses for not doing the hard work that it takes to develop the essential character competencies needed for true and lasting success. I have personally had educators from very good schools openly admit that developing students moral and performance character would require them to work harder, and that frankly, they don’t need to because their students test well and get into good colleges.  I’ve also had many—way too many—educators use “lack of motivation” and “it won’t make a difference because of their home-life and the media” and “kids don’t want or like to work on these things” as excuses for doing the hard work that it takes to develop the character assets that will serve kids for a lifetime.

  We know that developing the culture and competencies of excellence and ethics makes an empirical diffference on many of the most important outcomes–and that it is persistently neglected in its development. So what do you call it when you have knowledge outlining need, but you can’t effectively communicate that knowledge or mobilize the requisite behavior change?  Whatever you call it, that’s the challenge we’re going after in earnest at the start of 2011. It’s a challenge that intertwines communication, public relation, education, and social change—to name a few.  So what are we at IEE doing to translate what we know about the power of moral and performance character into action?  

  We’re working on more effective ways of communicating the essential notion that “character is power”—an age-old idea backed up by more and more cutting-edge evidence. We’re translating that knowledge into replicable programming (not a bunch of “you should” but a lot of “here’s how to do it”). We’re making that programming cost- and time-effective, using a mix of delivery options that include curriculum, professional development, and online resources so that teachers, coaches, parents, and business leaders can access resources they need. Check out our website to see the Unit 1 example of our Foundations Curriculum, and our free CEEA assessment tools, and look for many new forthcoming resources in 2011 (including our new Excellence & Ethics Parent Newsletter).  

  We can do this, we can measure it, and we can’t afford NOT to spend time and money on it—we either pay now or pay later, but we will indeed pay if we don’t develop moral and performance character.

  

   
• 

  An attitude of gratitude

  Matt Davidson posted in Character Blog at 12:33 pm on December 22, 2010 | 1 Permalink | Reply
  

  As we approach Christmas and the end of 2010, I am reminded of a quote from one of our benefactors, Sir John Templeton, which states: “an attitude of gratitude creates blessings.”  Here at IEE we are so grateful for the many individuals who give of their time, talent, and treasure to support our mission to build the culture of excellence and ethics. I thought it might tell a little of the story of IEE and to share some thanks and praise to the people who have contributed so much to our shared work.

  It’s a very difficult thing, saying thank you to loyal benefactors, since it always seems like self-serving pandering.  Yet, how can we not have an attitude of gratitude to those who support our efforts to do good—even when their direct contributions inevitably end?

  First, I’m grateful for the opportunity to have encountered Tom Lickona’s work as a graduate student in the Fall of 1993.  My experiences and beliefs came together in Tom’s course on character education. We began a friendship and a professional collaboration that has challenged and engaged me for nearly 20 years.  Tom will retire at the end of this academic year (although knowing Tom, he’ll still outwork most). IEE continues to partner with Tom Lickona and Marthe Seales at the Center; they are treasured colleagues.  IEE owes much of its original inspiration to Tom, Marthe, and the Center.  We intend always to respect and understand the foundations of our work, while hopefully advancing it to new levels of widespread enduring impact.

  It’s difficult to really put into words all the ways that the John Templeton Foundation has contributed to our growth.  Most obviously the Foundation has contributed essential financial support for our work. But I truly believe that it is the Foundations approach to philanthropy that has contributed to our growth. We founded IEE as a response to the Foundation’s challenge to grow our capacity to grow our work.  At every step they have challenged us to “do good well” by maximizing the enduring impact of what we do. They taught us to think about cost-effectiveness and really cultivated an approach to social entrepreneurship and instilled in us a desire to build a self-sustaining non-profit. They are not just a benefactor, but a collaborator in our work. They have pushed us, challenged us—and at every step made us better.

  We were recently notified that we would not be funded for a proposal that we had before the Foundation.  Humbly, we feel that it was a strong proposal, but as an organization, how can we not trust the intuitions of a foundation that has been so good to us, and has at every step helped us to improve?  On the contrary, even the difficult “no” we accept with a sense of respect and trust, believing that it is in our best interest and in the best interest of our work.

  Good funders are like good parents, I think: they don’t ever give or do for you, what you can do for yourself. They provide essential guidance and support at critical phases so that you can learn, and grow—and ultimately become strong and independent. But they don’t prepare a legacy of dependents; they don’t pamper, coddle, or prop up.  They should teach you to stand on your own. They should prepare a legacy of strong, self-sustaining, independent, values-driven organizations.  I don’t believe in spoiling nonprofits any more than I believe in spoiling children. I believe in tough love that instills deeply the values of the funder, manifested through the unique vision and talents of the particular organization. The Templeton Foundation and our other funders have parented us well, I believe.

  Along with the Templeton Foundation, no one has been a more loyal contributor to the growth of our work than Sandy McDonnell, and the McDonnell Foundation. Sandy is a passionate advocate, a dedicated learner, a true American Statesman. Aristotle once said, “What the statesman is most anxious to produce is a certain moral character in his fellow citizens, namely a disposition to virtue and the performance of virtuous actions.” That, I believe, is Sandy personified—a statesman.

  We recently learned that Sandy is very sick, suffering with stage four pancreatic cancer—but doing so with grace and courage.  Like the Templeton Foundation, I want to genuinely thank Sandy for all of his support, and to pledge our ongoing commitment to developing the culture of excellence and ethics in St. Louis and across the country.  We are in continuing conversation with two underserved schools in St. Louis and it looks promising that they will be using our materials next year—not because Sandy will fund it (his contribution to our work is also complete), but because he helped fund our past R&D that makes it possible for us to help these schools. We pursued these schools because we want to SHOW, not just tell Sandy how grateful we are.  We want Sandy to know, in the words of Archbishop Oscar Romero, that he is a “prophet of a future not his own.”  The seeds Sandy planted at IEE will continue to grow—and God-willing, multiply.   

  IEE is a young and vulnerable nonprofit making its way in a tough economic and education climate.  We are, frankly, still poor in monetary assets. But we profoundly rich in the assets that matter most—vision, values, passion, and people. We have been shaped by a group of extraordinary individuals and organizations who have blessed us with their unique assets.  We are, always have been, and always will be rich in sweat equity.  (This, honestly, is a pretty good description of my own assets (I grew up the fourth of nine children; we were poor economically and I was “poor” in talent, but my parents grounded us in faith, family, and an unwavering belief in the value of hard work and pursuit of passion; I have been exceeding rich in social capital, making up in abundance what I lacked in economic capital).

  At IEE we will work hard to do good well and we will not rest no matter the past accomplishments or future challenges. Tom Lickona and the Center for the 4^th and 5^th Rs, The Templeton Foundation, The Sanford McDonnell Foundation—and so many other individuals and organizations have shared wisdom and insight, support and challenge.

  The staff and Board at IEE are extraordinary. Each member of the IEE team has a story of how they came to us; each story speaks of patience, commitment, and extraordinary faith in the mission. On behalf of our entire IEE team, I say thank you to the tremendous friends and benefactors who have supported us thus far.  I truly believe IEE is poised to make a significant and lasting difference by providing high quality, accessible tools, services, and support for building the culture of excellence and ethics needed for success in school, work, and beyond. 

  In this season of faith and hope, I am struck by the famous quote from the movie, Miracle on 34^th Street:  “Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to.” We have faith in the power of character and culture; it is the foundational catalyst needed in our schools, homes, teams, organizations—and in our world.  In a fast-moving, fast-changing, technological world, common sense might say look to elsewhere for solutions to today’s challenges. We embrace new knowledge, technology, and innovation; but our faith rests in people and organizations of moral and performance character. Peace, joy and purpose to all in 2011.

  

   
• 

  Gates Research and the Culture of Excellence and Ethics

  Matt Davidson posted in Character Blog at 3:46 pm on December 15, 2010 | 2 Permalink | Reply
  

  A very interesting study just came out, underwritten by the Gates Foundation, designed to calculate how much each teacher has helped students learn based on changes in test scores. Here’s the bottom line: “Teachers whose students described them as skillful at maintaining classroom order, at focusing their instruction, and at helping students learn from their mistakes are often the same teachers whose students learn the most in the course of a year, as measured by standardized test scores.”

   $45 million in research—research, by the way that I think contributes very important knowledge regarding how to improve teaching and learning.  So, what’s my gripe?  It’s that I think the findings point to a small but essential piece of this puzzle that is likely not to be noticed: the need for intentionally shaping the character and culture NEEDED FOR learning.  I know, how self-serving and myopic could we be, right? You mean an organization dedicated to the intentional shaping of character and culture thinks that shaping character and culture is the solution?  Very fresh.

  But wait, I absolutely understand that we’re a small piece of the equation; I understand that school structure and size, curriculum, teaching and leadership, and all those factors related to core teaching and learning are the main components. But, what I’m saying is that character and culture are often the missing catalyst for teaching and learning, towards which the new Gates-funded research clearly points.

  Put differently, I’m arguing that understanding “what works in the classroom” has a lot of parallels to the legend of the Blind Men and the Elephant.  Each person is convinced of what the essence of the elephant is, based solely on what they can feel. And they’re vehement about what they “know.” But, it’s the perspective(s) they DON’T know or consider that is essential for a full understanding. Or to praphrase from the legend…

  O how they cling and wrangle…

  For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.

  Such folk see only one side of a thing.

  We recognize and accept the limited nature of our perspective. No matter how much attention you place on developing character and culture, it will be an insufficient response to the challenges school face. Pedagogy, teacher preparation, school size and governance—these are big parts of the elephant that is school.  We’d just like to ask for folks to see a different side of this thing, namely the small, but essential role of character and culture in classrooms that work.  

  Click for a more detailed discussion of this blind man’s assessment of the recently released Gates Research and the culture of excellence and ethics WhatWorks_IEE-GatesResearchResponse.

  

   
• 

  Is character caught or is it taught?

  Matt Davidson posted in Character Blog at 3:53 pm on December 3, 2010 | 0 Permalink | Reply
  

  In Greek, the word “character” translates roughly as “enduring, lasting, or indelible mark.”  Character is the distinguishing mark of an individual (or organization).  We often say that “character is values in action.”  It becomes your distinguishing mark as you repeatedly (and consistently) put your espoused values into action.  Mother Teresa is remembered as just, loving, faithful (and faith-filled) because of how she lived her life. She consistently matched her actions to her deeply held values.

  Often we focus a lot on the knowledge aspect of character (What does justice mean? What does it look like? How should we think about justice?). The cognitive piece isn’t unimportant, but in our work we’ve become much more focused on how to help folks consistently put their espoused values into action, believing that when you repeatedly perform an action it becomes a habit—a stable and automated response.  I don’t have to think about how or why to do something a certain way, I just act; it’s who I am and how I operate.  

  How does this happen?  How does character go from an espoused value (this is important) to a consistent behavior (this is my consistent response when faced with similar situations or stimuli)? Is character caught or is it taught?  Do we “catch” character from being around good role-models and in an environment where particular values are consistently lived out?  Or, are we taught what good character looks like, sounds like, and feels like?  Sociologists and psychologists—as well as practitioners from every walk of life—might certainly argue for one or the other. 

   Our belief is that it’s both.  Character develops when it is both caught and taught. What’s that mean?  It means character develops best when we explicitly teach the skills (or competencies) needed to put values in action.  However, these skills must also be lived; they have to be part of the core norms guiding everyday behavior.  Character skills don’t really become stable until, like fish in water that learn to swim and breathe in and through their environment, we cannot separate who we are from how we live.  

  Consider a context like the military. Regardless of how you feel about the military and their reason for existing and ways of operating, the military is almost without equal in their ability to consistently shape character and culture.  They begin with a vision of the character needed for success—leadership, work ethic, grit, integrity, etc.  Then they clearly teach you their “way”.  They don’t leave anything to chance—how you dress, how you stand, how you communicate, etc. You will understand the military way—which is likely very different than other ways of acting. But it’s not enough that they teach the expectations (like a class); they expectations must be lived.  They make you practice these skills so often that your response becomes automated. You’re not thinking about “what are the three steps?” or “what was it they said about how to handle this?”. Instinct takes over. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t thinking required, it just means that there is core set of essential skills that we know, believe, and do.

  Now, you might say. Most organizations aren’t like the military. We’ll grant you that. But we’d argue that every effective organization (school, home, team, or business) must shape character and culture with the same intentionality.  And unfortunately, most organizations are often decidedly unintentional about essential elements of their everyday life. They may focus on certain big items, like overall philosophy, goals, and strategy, but most ignore or neglect to shape the character and culture needed for those philosophies, goals, and strategies. 

  Here’s a concrete example using a Power2Achieve Brainstorming tool as a model.  Teamwork, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking—these are commonly desired character and culture assets.   Many organizational philosophies, goals, and strategies require these character attributes in order for success. But, how do these develop? Do you just put these in your mission statement?  Do you reward and punish, exhort and plead?  You can, but you’re likely to be very inconsistent in shaping character and culture. 

  Instead, we would argue that if these are needed for success in your organization, you can’t recruit for them or hope for them, you must teach them.  So if you want teamwork and collaboration and critical thinking, you probably want to make sure your team knows how to brainstorm. (How many times do folks get into problem solving, or launch into production, or shoot down ideas, etc.?). Brainstorming is one essential process that contributes to creativity, teamwork, collaboration, etc. Therefore we must teach how to do it.

  The following Power2Achieve Rubric clearly defines what we mean by brainstorming (and what we don’t mean). 

  Next, you must make this the operating norm for how you will brainstorm.  It has to become part and parcel of who you are. You must use this consistently and pervasively.  It has to become an automated habit. Getting there will take time, coaching, accountability (praise and polish); but eventually it will become a distinguishing mark of your organization. And for those who experience this way of being, it then produces stable or consistent character habits so that when they go into other contexts they still act this way—not because they have to or because they’ll get in trouble, but because it’s what they know, believe, and have experienced. And, because this approach has worked for them. 

  Is brainstorming really that important?  Well, it is if you want creativity, teamwork, and the identified traits above.  Do we really have to do it your way? No. But what’s your way? Can you teach it? Do your people know it and live it?  If you don’t intentionally teach it, you get what you get–both in terms of character development and in terms of positive and productive work. And, don’t be surprised if you’re running around like a fire-fighter stamping out unintended habits and behaviors.

  This tool, and the battery of Power2Achieve tools, provide what Darcia Narvaez calls “good enough heuristics”—or, simple guides for behavior.  They compress the theoretical fidelity of the existing research into convenient (i.e., simple, concrete, memorable, action-oriented) norms for behavior.  These are intentional norms for guiding action and reflection; consistent and pervasive operation according to these norms define an organizations “way” (i.e., culture), which in term shapes the character of those operating according to that way.

  You aren’t born knowing how to communicate, collaborate, work hard, make ethical decisions or so many of the character skills needed for success in school, work, and beyond. Neither do you learn to do these consistently without practice.  Building an intentional culture of excellence and ethics requires that character be taught and caught.  Next time you’re frustrated with a missing character skill in your organization, ask yourself if you’ve explicitly taught the skill in simple (not simplistic), memorable, replicable action steps.  Then ask yourself if this skill is something that is a lived norm within your culture. Is this a signature practice or way of operating, or is it a slogan on a wall?   Amazing what is possible when character is caught and taught.

  

   
• 

  Federal Character Education Study Reframed

  Matt Davidson posted in Character Blog at 1:34 pm on November 1, 2010 | 4 Permalink | Reply
  

  A recently released federal study of character education programs found that, “for the most part [the programs studied] don’t produce any improvements in student behavior or academic performance.”  Should those who believe in the power of character and culture, like those here at IEE, close up shop?  Well, not exactly.  The empirical findings, while disappointing, aren’t nearly as important as are the deeper implications and insights—some of which we’ve been hammering at in our work for years.  To me there is a much more important story behind the story.

  To be fair at the outset:  I can’t speak to the quality of any of these programs—either in design or implementation. I know the Second Step Program by reputation to be a strong program. But I’ve never reviewed it or any of the other programs.  I can’t even speak to the quality of the researchers, I know one by reputation and a few professional interactions, Brian Flay, to be a committed social scientists who also, so far as I know him, seems to be an advocate for character education, which is to say I believe he would be fair and not have an agenda for this research. (I do think there are limitations and nuances that need to be discussed, but we’ll go after that in another blog).  All that to say, I’m not trying to blame the programs or debunk the research; rather, I’d like to use this post to reiterate some of the foundational differences between our approach, and the character education approach presented in this research report.

  First difference:   we define character differently. This report says character education doesn’t improve student academic performance. But when you tease out how they define character, what they mean is “moral character”–honesty, kindness, respect.  While hardly unimportant, should making a school safe and respectful improve academic performance?  Not necessarily.  We define character in terms of moral and performance character (character needed for ethics and excellence).  Unless or until the approach to character education includes a focus on both moral and performance character—perseverance, work ethic, positive attitude, the character needed for excellence—you’re likely not going to see a direct impact on academic performance.

  Second difference:  we develop character in and through teaching and learning. The report defines the intervention in terms of assemblies, service projects, and other school-wide activities.  These interventions are what we call “parallel to” teaching and learning. Our approach develops character and culture “in and through learning.”  What’s that mean?  Does it seem reasonable that a whole school service project would teach students to give and receive constructive criticism, improve effort and attitude, collaborate, or communicate?  Not really.  Service projects aren’t a bad intervention strategy; they are just unlikely to develop the character NEEDED FOR learning.  To use a sports analogy: you can be “in shape”—meaning you run and do Pilates—but these exercises don’t prepare you to play football.  How do we develop character? Assemblies and service projects aren’t bad, just insufficient for developing the character muscles needed to make a difference in the culture of excellence and ethics.

  I’m not surprised that a program entitled “Love in a Big World,” which involves 30 weeks of teacher-led reading, writing, and discussion on honesty, responsibility, and self-control would not contribute to changes in academic performance, engagement with learning and overall academic performance. By title and design it seems to be going after something different.  Power2Achieve by title and design is going after something directly aligned with the core mission of teaching and learning: developing the character and culture needed for success in school, work, and beyond.

  Third difference:  we shape culture to shape character. The report focuses on how the schools develop knowledge of values. The report describes the intervention efforts to read, write, and discuss values like honesty and responsibility.  Values are important, but these must be distilled down into competencies—what students will be able to do.  For example, discussions of perseverance don’t mean that students will be able to revise, demonstrate positive attitude in the face of difficulty, continue trying when things don’t come easily, etc. How do students develop those competencies?  Through an intentional culture that uses teaching and learning rituals and routines to practice revising, to practice maintaining positive attitude, to practice giving effort.  Our motto: “we shape the culture, the culture shapes the character.”  Unless or until you have consistent and pervasive practices and strategies that students experience like water around fish, it will likely not become part and parcel of the school or their character.

  Just to make this very concrete: we have shared other Power2Achieve tools for shaping the character and culture of excellence and ethics needed for learning.  But the P2A Constructive Criticism Rubric is another example that I think will bring home what I’m going after.  Constructive criticism is competency (something that students need to be able to do) that draws upon several values (honesty, humility, respect, work ethic, etc.) and is essential for success in school, work, and beyond. 
  
  
  
  
  If you want to teach kids math, science, writing, etc., they must be able to do this well. When this becomes an intentional norm (a defining “way” in how your class or school operates), when students are introduced to this, practice this repeatedly, and across stakeholders (in class, in extracurricular activities, at home, etc.), then students’ character is impacted.  If students develop this competency, is it likely we will see an impact on learning and overall educational climate for learning?  Is it more likely to impact character and climate needed for learning than other activities, like assemblies and service projects?

  In fairness, these programs might say, “Hey, that’s not what we’re trying to do. We aren’t trying to improve test scores and student engagement.”  To which we would say, “We understand and agree that there should be a place in the curriculum for other kinds of interventions.”  But as this study shows, what schools really want from character education is to develop the character and culture needed for enhanced teaching and learning, which includes both moral and performance character, excellence and ethics.  Look for more analysis of this report in future blogs.

  

   
• 

  Eureka Moment in Ohio: Want To Improve Math? Build the Culture of Excellence and Ethics.

  Matt Davidson posted in Character Blog at 12:21 pm on October 19, 2010 | 2 Permalink | Reply
  

  Last week I participated in the Ohio Schools of Character Summit at the Fawcett Center on the campus of Ohio State University.  As part of my keynote address I was sharing how our evolving theory and tools for building the culture of excellence and ethics can move character education from “nice to necessary.” This is especially important for those educators who struggle to justify a focus on character education when they are faced with new and increasingly rigorous state and national standards, and other programmatic initiatives like Response to Intervention, 21^st C Skills, dropout prevention and post-secondary success.

  As part of the conference, the Ohio Partners in Character Education and the Better Business Bureau’s Center for Character Ethics recognized their EUREKA educator of the year.  The award annually recognizes an Ohio educator (preK-16) who embodies both the highest level of teaching competency and character development in their classroom pedagogy, management and relations with their students and peers. EUREKA teachers strive to help their students and themselves “be their best self and do their best work.”

  In our words, we would say, “these EUREKA educators intentionally build the culture of excellence and ethics NEEDED FOR learning.”  They understand that if you want to teach math, you must first reach students.  And the way to reach them is to intentionally create a culture of hard work, personal and collective responsibility; a culture where it’s safe to share your work; a culture where classmates treat each other with respect and care; a culture where you’re challenged to get outside your comfort zone;  a culture defined by perseverance, work ethic, positive attitude, and grit. 

  For the second year in a row, the EUREKA Educator of the year was a math educator (last year was Mark Schumacker, a middle school math teacher featured in the Spring, 2009 issue of Excellence & Ethics; this year’s recipient was Sue Thuma a 30-year veteran math educator from West Muskingum High School).  Permit us to pound our chest with pride for just a moment:   the growth and recognition of math educators as exemplars in helping students do their best work and be their best self is a HUGE leap forward for the field.  In the past character education was something that people said was “a better fit for English or Social Studies,” or “better experienced through service learning.” 

  With the paradigm shift we have been promoting, educators now see that building the culture of excellence and ethics is possible—and necessary—in every classroom. And that in this new way of thinking, getting good at math presents for students all the authentic challenges and engagement of a ropes course experience.  Only you don’t have to go to a ropes course to feel nervous, to be challenged, to need trust and teamwork from your classmates; you can create that intentionally in your own math class today.   We support learning by supporting learners.  No matter how naturally talented a student may be, or what the developmental level, educators must intentionally build the culture of excellence and ethics needed for learning.  We shape the culture for learning; the culture for learning shapes the character of students. It is in and through the educational experience is where the real action of character development takes place.

  In a breakout session on alignment of character education to state standards and pressing educational reform issues, this year’s EUREKA educator, Sue Thuma, said the following (I’m paraphrasing):  “I have no problem with the curricular changes that have been passed requiring all students to meet higher Math standards. But the only way we’re going to meet those standards s by concentrating even more on developing the moral and performance character needed to support student learning. EUREKA!

  

   
• 

  Want Enduring Impact? Find the Convenience-Fidelity Balance

  Matt Davidson posted in Character Blog at 2:19 pm on October 8, 2010 | 0 Permalink | Reply
  

  Every once in a while you come upon an idea that really helps you to make sense of things. For me it was the book, Trade-Off, which looks at how the balance of convenience and fidelity determines which products catch on and have staying power, and which products quickly fade away.  It was in the context of trying to understand the cost-effectiveness and enduring impact of our Power2Achieve programming that we began to consider these ideas of convenience and fidelity.   The graphic below is a visual we built to demonstrate the basic ideas.

  

  If you just think about programming that you’re familiar with in schools in terms of convenience and fidelity you begin to see what we’re going after:  Some approaches are convenient (easy to use, doesn’t take too much time, students like it—or at least don’t hate it), but they lack fidelity.  These are your “rock hard abs in just 15 minutes a day programs.”  They are what we crassly call “cheesy, contrived, junk.”  Then there are other programs that have great fidelity (strong theoretical and empirical basis and likely to have impact if they’re sustained), but they are impossible to sustain because they’re inconvenient to implement (they take too much time, require too much coaching and training, etc.).  Too often these are the programmatic solutions of academics and theoreticians who overbuild and rely too heavily on extensive training and coaching because the ideas are not refined to the simplicity beyond complexity.

  In fairness, in the past we’ve been guilty of proposing a convenience-fidelity proposition to schools that was unsustainable. Even schools that believed deeply in what we were proposing and the rigor of its vision and general recommendations, struggled to figure out what to do, how to do it, and ultimately struggled to sustain their efforts.  We got closer last year with our first generation of Power2 programming. The subsequent revisions to this year’s programming we believe are getting closer still to programming that is right in the crosshairs of convenience and fidelity.  Something that is theoretically and practically sound, engaging for students, user-friendly for teachers, and goes after the core issues that impact teaching and learning. 

  We’ll be sharing more examples of what this looks like and how we’re doing it. But reflect for a minute about the programming you have experienced using this convenience and fidelity notion as a lens.  I think it helps you understand when you’ve got something that isn’t right and when you’ve got something that is right; the real challenge, is what to do to fix something that IS NOT balancing convenience and fidelity.  For us it just took more than 15 years of blood, sweat, and tears. But with any luck, you can learn from our mistakes and more effeciently and effectively create something that has enduring impact.

  For a fuller description of how we are operationally defining the terms “convenience” and “fidelity” and how Power2Achieve is going after this balance of convenience and fidelity you can check out this link from under the programming tab on our website http://excellenceandethics.com/programs/P2A_Logic_Model_Description.pdf.