How trusting is your school: measuring and developing what matters most. Alistair Smith
“In schools that are improving, where trust and cooperative adult efforts are strong, students report that they feel safe, sense that teachers care about them, and experience greater academic challenge. In contrast, in schools with flat or declining test scores, teachers are more likely to state that they do not trust one another” Sebring & Bryk, 2000
Can I trust you? “Can I trust you?“ How many times have you been asked that question? How did you respond? Maybe you had a sudden surge of adrenaline as you anticipated hearing something intimate and exclusive? Perhaps feelings of dread, worsened by running simultaneous and increasingly alarming scenarios of what next in your head? Possibly you just thought ‘why me?’ Some of us would think, ‘Yes you can trust me - but can I trust you?” The act of trusting precipitates emotion. Not always positively so. Trust is one of those human experiences that becomes most noticeable when it’s no longer there or when it must be requested or sought after. For those who lead and work in schools your personal and professional satisfaction will be largely determined by the degree to which trust flows in, around and through your school. Trust is a phenomenon which deserves closer scrutiny. “Trust speeds everything up. Without it you have to go back and forth, have endless discussions, deal with egos, get stuck on some policy detail. When others trust you - you just get on with it.1” In successful organisations with high levels of trust staff are less likely to take time off, are more effective at what they do and are more likely to stay2. In a school, trust gets essential things done quicker. It helps teaching staff deal with uncertainty3. It helps improve teaching and learning4. Anyone who has ever worked in or around a school knows how important trust is. Yet despite this it’s never measured, featured in professional development programme, written into institutional development plans or mentioned any part of the inspection process. It ought to be! Trust is the difference which makes the difference! In education trust operates within a school, between schools and across a school system. In each case trust can be measured in terms of how much it exists, in the frequency of behaviours which 1
Ani Magill, CBE, CEO Xavier Trust, Head Teacher interview, September 2017 – The Trust Project Harvard Business Review, 2016 3 Sebring & Bryk, 2000 4 Steinberg et al., 2011 2
either build or demolish it and in its impact. I’ve worked with lots of different schools over a number of years and found six levels - each of which attracts, or fails to attract, an investment of trust… Levels of Trust ‘The success of this school is not an accident. For the last 20 years, we have had a vision to create a truly outstanding example of comprehensive education. From pretty humble beginnings we have come 5 a long way .’
Trust can be invested in the authority of a School’s moral Purpose. This is the highest level. Staff buyin to the transformative ambition. It motivates. Everyone believes that their daily activity contributes to something bigger and better than anything they are capable of whilst acting alone. It’s a quasi-religious trust often expressed in aspirations for the children in their care. It’s trust in Purpose. “Trust means you have to allow staff to challenge you - we model challenge in staff forums where its open and polite. We meet as a staff and shared the research we discuss it and agree together after discussion which strategies work best, we cull together, trial and review. Clarity in meetings matters. Questions we need to address are planned in advance. We trust the process”.6 Trust in Performance is the belief that through their collective and individual effort teaching professionals will design and deliver high-quality learning experiences for the youngsters in their care - and will do so day in, day out. A surgeon is trusted to use his or her skills and proven methods to operate successfully, a pilot to master the technology and adapt to conditions without fear of failure and teachers ought to be, and in the better schools often are, trusted to find the best methods to use for success. Essential school systems such as curriculum planning, assessment, behaviour management and accountability are like household plumbing. It goes unnoticed until it develops faults; then all hell breaks loose. In schools, we invest significant trust in Plumbing. We may not have built it ourselves, we may have inherited some of it but we rely on it until it goes wrong. Do you trust those with whom you work? More importantly do they, or should they, trust you? Schools are places where adults often have to do things they’d rather not. Staff rely on each other. They place trust in People. Bonds are built and then reinforced when actions follow words. When staff do things they’d rather not simply because others rely on them to do so. “Schools build relational trust in day-to-day social exchanges. Through their words and actions, school participants show their sense of their obligations toward others, and others discern these intentions. Trust grows through exchanges in which actions validate these expectations.7” Pizazz means ‘an attractive combination of vitality and glamour.’ It’s a characteristic of successful individuals and, arguably, successful schools. It’s our final level. It’s never mentioned in the
David Horn CEO Beckfoot Trust, Head Teacher interview, May 2017 – The Trust Project Michelle Green, Exec Head at Corngreaves and Timbertree Primaries, Cradley Heath, Head Teacher interview, May 2017 – The Trust Project 7 Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for School Reform, Anthony S. Bryk and Barbara Schneider, 2003 5
6
Leadership literature. For an individual teacher, Pizazz could be about their personal enthusiasm for what they do. For example, finding creative energy for a worthwhile project or a career change. For some its more natural than others but it would be rare for a teacher to approach a job interview without at least believing they can bring pizazz. I believe schools and teachers invest trust in bringing purposeful energy to what they do; they trust in Pizazz. ‘Your personal core purpose should be indivisible from the schools and it’s about the difference you make to their life chances. This is the priority. I’ve always been described as ballsy but that’s only cos I know what’s right for us. When schools are going all wrong it’s all about leadership. Too much talk is about nonsense and irrelevant policies. Nonsense is anything that will not impact positively on pupils.8” Within a successful organisation or school there is constructive alignment between each of these six levels. None are dismissed as unimportant. The core Purpose is revisited, it determines policy, shapes strategic decisions and guides choices. Performance is held in check by serving the agreed Purpose but at the same time is lent importance by regular review, insightful resourcing and professional development. The essential systems described as Plumbing allow the everyday business of the school to take place without fuss or anxiety. People bring individual and collective Pizazz to the challenges which school life brings. They look after, and challenge each other. When times are difficult they are a resource for each other.
1. Constructive Alignment of high-performing organisations and schools Measuring Trust in your School Each of the performance levels attracts an investment of trust. Without this trust, the school fails. Research has given us several ways of describing this trust. Unsurprisingly the research literature reminds us ‘considerable debate exists on what inspires or inhibits trust9’ and that trust is ‘multidimensional, culturally determined, dynamic and communication-based’10. However, based on the work of Dietz and Den Hartog (2006) we can use four attributes, ways in which your school 8
Michelle Green, Exec Head at Corngreaves and Timbertree Primaries, Cradley Heath, Head Teacher interview, May 2017 – The Trust Project 9 Dietz and Den Hartog, Measuring Trust Inside Organisations, Personnel Review, 2006 10 Katie Delahaye Paine, Guidelines for Measuring Trust in Organizations, The Institute for Public Relations, 2003
community expresses trust. They are competence, benevolence, integrity and predictability - defined as follows. Competence is the belief that the other party has the skills, knowledge and qualities to carry out their obligations. Benevolence is investing benign motives in the other party with a genuine concern for their welfare Integrity involves adherence to a set of principles acceptable to the other party encompassing openness, honesty and fair treatment Predictability relates specifically to consistency and regularity of behaviour When you position the performance levels against the four attributes of trust you create a very useful tool for examining the current, and likely future, emotional health and systemic alignment of your school. Competence Benevolence Integrity Predictability Purpose
Our school vision will be achieved together
We put the best interests of students first
Staff will challenge what we do if it’s right to do so
Performance
Staff can be relied upon to achieve results We have the right systems for success We have talented people at every level Staff provide more solutions than problems
Staff do their utmost to improve performance
Staff would never knowingly cut corners
Staff don’t need close monitoring to do things well Our staff always look after each other
Our school systems are fair for everyone Our staff tell the truth
Our school systems make it easier to teach Our staff fulfil their promises
For our staff, it’s more than a job
We admit to and can show our vulnerability
Our school is always a vibrant place to work
Plumbing People Pizazz
Staff will always be loyal to the school and what we stand for Staff bring energy to all tasks
2. Constructive Alignment and four attributes of trust. I’ve created an electronic version of the table above and used it in schools. It comprises 20 questions and a Likert-scale measure of 7 points. It’s not intended to be, nor is it, scientific. It’s a tool for a school community to address the key issues, arguably the key issue, together. How would your school community respond to a statement such as ‘Staff don’t need close monitoring to do things well?’ There are a variety of factors impacting on the possible response. The individual’s disposition and mood, their immediate and historic experience of what being ‘monitored’ entails in their school, their reading of the intent behind the statement, the circumstances in which it is asked and so on. The purpose of asking ought itself to be benevolent. In other words, to find out the reality or perceived reality and address any issues which arise. Openness, honesty and a degree of vulnerability invite trust. Leaders in high-trust workplaces ask for help from colleagues instead of just telling them to do things. My research team has found that this stimulates oxytocin production in others, increasing their trust
and cooperation. Asking for help is a sign of a secure leader—one who engages everyone to reach 11 goals
For a school community, there are opportunities provided by table 2 above for exploring the trust issues raised by each individual statement. In a school where I introduced the statements to all staff, teaching and non-teaching on an in-service event, there were hot spots. “Staff would never knowingly cut corners” provoked a flurry of speculation about the circumstances in which you would cut corners, what were the sources of pressures if any to cut corners and, refreshingly, a view that day to day experience was ‘all about cutting corners!” A school could also use the questionnaire to evaluate the degree to which their everyday energies and preoccupations were aligned in a way which made a difference. For example, a school which scored itself low in both Predictability and Plumbing would be a stressful place to work. Having the correct Plumbing – for example, Standard Operating Procedures for behaviour, feedback and marking, assessment – reduces demands on the teacher because it increases Predictability in the system. Its unambiguous; teachers know how and where they can be helped if they are struggling with an unruly pupil, or what expectations are around when, and when not to, provide written feedback in books or the agreed benchmarking standards for pupil work. Trust builds progressively over time but can disappear in an instant. The actions of every school leader are scrutinised every moment of every school day. Take care! There some simple and obvious lessons leaders can learn about trust. The first is to do the day job, do it well, be as good as you can be, and be visible in being so. Your staff will not care how frequent your tweets or how considered your blogging happens to be if they never see you in the corridors or their classrooms. Second, focus relentlessly on what’s important – to create an environment where staff can plan, deliver, evaluate and improve quality learning experiences for all the children in your collective care and do so together: everything else is just puff. Third, care - but care with candour. Be honest and transparent. Model the behaviours you espouse and stay consistent whatever. There is worth in the saying that ‘whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters. ‘ If you say you will do something, then do it. Finally build the capacity for trust within the school and when you’re asked, ‘can I trust you?’ Say ‘yes, and I trust you too.’ Alistair Smith’s next book Trust Bonds will be available in the Spring of 2018. The Trust in Schools Project uses the materials described in this article. Contact Alistair via www.alistairsmithlearning.com for more details.
11
https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-neuroscience-of-trust
References Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational trust�, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-34. The Neuroscience of Trust, Harvard Business Review, 2016 Graham Dietz, Deanne N. Den Hartog, (2006) "Measuring trust inside organisations", Personnel Review, Vol. 35 Issue: 5, pp.557-588 Sebring, P.B., & Bryk, A.S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 440-443.