Questions vs . Answers

Finally, leaders struggled not only with this paradox but even more so with being responsible for delivering the message that their collective best was thus far not good enough. Specifically, confronting the reality of schools doing their best given the current beliefs and supports in place would require a heavy-handed reality check with an even stronger voice and compelling vision for what was possible. Such a task was complicated and required a unique set of leadership abilities. Leaders worried about the high probability that bringing to light the discrepancy of “feeling good, doing badly” could create the perception of disrespect or degradation, potentially breaking the spirit of schools that were naturally humble by circumstance, yet enormously prideful in traditions. No leader wished to become the enemy of the team they were entrusted to lead.

Another leadership paradox—questions vs. answers—posed a different set of challenges for leaders. At first glance, questions and answers seem fairly routine for school organizations: leaders ask questions, teams provide answers, and vice versa. However, when considering the massive overhaul of low-performing school structures and protocols along with creating a new way of conducting business, it was nothing of the sort. Historically, district leaders had shared important, but somewhat routine, less critical information regarding schedules, duties, and events. The district had prioritized the management of the schools as a key indicator of positive performance for leaders. However, now that the school organizations were seeking to inspire change through the power of purpose around student learning, leaders would need to stretch themselves to create the conditions necessary to embrace a heartfelt dialogue with the intent to connect to teams. Better yet, leaders would have to become instructional leaders, not just site managers, and the district would have to prioritize this through their own actions and behaviors. It was obvious at some point that no number of agendas, schedules, or event calendars was going to pull schools like Jefferson from the established habit of low expectations and poor beliefs. Only a deep commitment to beliefs and convictions supporting a clear purpose that valued student learning would be reflected in school and student performance. Leaders could only create these conditions through thoughtful questioning and skilled facilitation. Balanced leadership in this context would require much bigger, much deeper questions that evoked raw emotions from teams. In theory, the PLC process would create the right conditions and serve as a catalyst to fundamentally reset the organization’s axis around a greater purpose. However, what caused apprehension for leaders was being put in a position of vulnerability as facilitators. To do this right, leaders would need to create the conditions necessary to connect viscerally and emotionally with teams through grander questions that couldn’t be answered with simple responses. Leaders needed to inspire teams with questions that