Why are talented people leaving education? #3

Part Three – How Can Reverse the Trend?

William Sommers & Janice Bradley

Toxic leaders who focus on ‘Theory X’ management styles and/or  ‘command-and-control’ only, contribute to accelerating the exodus of talented professionals, and sustain high pressure/low creativity to their organizations. What we will address in this third article is WHAT we want and NOW WHAT.

“The right time was yesterday. The best time is now.”

Unknown

Since the days of Frederick Taylor and his theory of Scientific Management, processes have been segmented into individual parts and contributed to the individuation of any mechanical process.  Some managers still practice what Taylor designed in the early 1900s.  Today’s developmental processes need the strengths ofcollaboration, creativity, and communication.  It is a more systemic approach for learning and business.  Supervisors are no longer only managing one part of the process.  Learning is integrated  at every step.

Talented people are leaving education because it is difficult to get Glasser’s four basic needs met in one’s current culture, namely fun, power, freedom, and belonging. There usually is a progression of the culture when due dates are near, expenses are over budget, and stress is high.  Leaders feeling responsible start pressing and pressuring people  to work harder, faster, and stronger.  This strategy usually backfires and diminishes one’s professional power, fun, and freedom to make strategic choices.

Spending more time on our weakest areas is tempting and important if the behavior is a deal breaker. There are more positive rewards for us focusing on our strengths. Imagine a student who struggles with math but excels at writing. In school, they might spend hours raising their math grades from a C to a B. However, spending the same time on writing might move them from an A to an A+. Address weaknesses only to the point where they stop holding you back. Then concentrate effort on your strengths.

Focusing on one’s strengths in a toxic culture takes a great deal of self-confidence and personal vision. For any educator who is not in a role of formal positional power, one’s strengths may seem hard to find if they experience a toxic leader who displays any of the following behaviors: bullying, passivity, inducing fear, manipulation, and isolation. People want to please and perform well yet are stifled working under a toxic leader.

Do not buy into the comment, ‘there aren’t enough teachers.’  There are more than enough teachers.  They are choosing not to teach.  It is the culture, not the job.

Martin Seligman (1967) studied and coined the term ‘learned helplessness.’  This state of being is when nothing seems to work to finish projects or get rewarded and the toxic culture continues to exist, people just quit trying and go silent.  When nothing works, people give up.  Beating a dead horse does not make them run faster.

Like Gottman’s research referred to earlier, there can be a progression of cultural decline. Drawing on the work of Laura Crawshaw the first stage is ‘Abrasive Manager.’ Crawshaw’s definition is: Abrasive Bosses are deemed as harsh or rough in manner, describing the characteristic interpersonal style of abrasive bosses. Abrasive bosses rub their coworkers the wrong way, inflicting lasting wounds. Their behaviors, characterized by aggression, damage work relationships to the point of disrupting organizational functioning.

If not addressed, stage two is the toxic leader that we have written about in the last two articles.  Direct Reports, co-workers, and colleagues start moving away from and limiting interactions with the leader as a physical and psychological safety strategy.

Abusive leaders are the final stage.  Here are five indicators from Crawshaw’s work.

1. overcontrol
2. threats
3. public humiliation
4. condescension
5. overreaction

Adequate leaders do not assume incompetent or inexperienced employees as a threat.  They tend to see problems to be solved, not someone or something to blame.  Neither author has seen blame and shame to solve personnel or business issues in the short-term or long-term.  Left resolved, the internal collaboration usually gets worse.

Unfortunately, 80% of abrasive, toxic, and abusive leaders do not see themselves as hurting others.  (Crawshaw, 2007).  In order to change the following process is helpful:

1. See their blind spots and how their behavior affects others.
2. Care enough and willing to change their behavior.
3. Learn ways to change their behavior to a more collaborative and supportive workplace.

Many times, an intervention is necessary from the leaders’ supervisor.  We recommend Stakeholder Centered Coaching (SCC) as one method to elevate and sustain a change in behavior.  SCC interviews direct reports that the leader trusts, gathers their feedback on strengths and challenges, and invites metrics along the way as well as a final assessment. In the final analysis, it is not whether the leader believes position change has occurred, it is the assessment of the direct reports that determine the belief that better relationships and working conditions exist.

For the supervisor of an abrasive or abusive leader, the question is even though the leader may be very intelligent, creative, and hardworking, can a supervisor afford the morale issues and the command-and-control system that might be limiting even better team performance?

Peter Drucker said years ago, ‘the person in the position of power to make the decision has that right.  Get over it.’  Not easy to accept sometimes and it is true.

“It is not about you (the leader)

It is about whether the direct reports believe there is a change for the better.

IT’S ABOUT THEM.” 

Blame & Shame -> Name, Frame, Reframe, & Tame

                  Zenger Folkman, referenced in the book, A Time to Lead (2022), decided to look more closely into the answer.  They divided a group of leaders who were developing an improvement plan into two categories.  The first group solely looked at their weaknesses, while the second incorporated both strengths and weaknesses into their plan.

                  The group who focused solely on their weaknesses showed a 12 percent improvement in performance. 

                  The group who included their strengths and weaknesses in their development plan had three times better performance than the group that focused only on weaknesses (which represents a 36 percent improvement).  This makes a compelling case as to the importance of ensuring we do not forget about strengths when we are looking at getting the best out of ourselves.

What if the direct reports want to stay, cannot leave for personal reasons, and don’t believe change will happen?  Here are a few thoughts from people who have solved, resolved, and pondered this question:

1. Create internal support system allowing opportunities to experience positive reinforcement from coworkers
2. Move to another team in the same organization
3. Build trust among your own work group
4. Put examples of transgressions in writing as a log of experiences
5. Create your own learning team
6. Practice random acts of kindness attributions to individual members
7. Say to team members: how can I support you? Let’s figure this out together.
8. Take breaks to refresh your own mind (put on your own mask as the airline says)
9. Connect with positive people
10. Have an outside avocation and supportive personal group
11. Create your personal boundaries. Example: If a supervisor blames or accuses inappropriately, state “Please say that again.”

References:

Crawshaw, Laura. (2007). Taming the Abrasive Manager.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass

Dowden, Craig, PhD. (2022). A Time to Lead – Mastering Yourself so you can.

                  Master Your World. New York:  Simon & Shuster, Worth

Glasser, W. (1999). Choice Theory-A New Psychology of Personal Freedom-HarperCollins Publishers (1999).

Seligman, Martin. (1967). University of Pennsylvania.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness