Matthew Taylor - The Noble School Leader

They are:

The Transactional Manager

The Unintended Enabler

The Negative Controller

The Pacesetter

The Doer

The Imposter

The Implementer

There is much written about the transactional manager management approach (McClesky 2014; Spahr 2014; and Hargis et al. 2011). 1 My use of this term emphasizes its technical, compliance‐driven aspects that can demotivate stakeholders when the approach is overused.

Transactional managers assume that the world is a mostly rational place, that adult human beings are rational creatures that receive clear (to me) information, process it (like I do), and then behave according to the expectations I have communicated: a simple transaction. They under‐prioritize understanding other people's needs, and inevitably tell too much and listen too little. When these leaders do not know where their people are and what they need, they are likely to misdiagnose the problem and choose the wrong leadership action to accomplish their objectives. These errors can lead the transactional manager to make the fundamental attribution error —the assumption that people themselves are the reason for their lack of growth and not the conditions in which they are working, which the leader is largely responsible for creating (Heath and Heath 2010). 2

The concepts of unintended enabler and negative controller (the next self‐limiting mindset) have been applied effectively to the education sector in the last decade by the CT3 professional development group (CT3 2018). 3

Unintended enablers are uncomfortable with conflict and are afraid of damaging relationships. These leaders often hold a negative view of positional power. When acting from an unintended enabler mindset, leaders default to attempting to build or preserve positive relationship and inspire stakeholders, even when those approaches will not achieve the outcomes they desire. Enablers “let things go this time” and retreat to silence when observing behavior that doesn't meet their standards.

When leaders enable, what they allow becomes the unwritten rule. When their teams and students know that they are not going to be held accountable, leaders lose credibility, and inadvertently communicate that they don't believe in their people. Schools led by unintended enablers may be positive on the surface but lack real investment in learning, and they are marked by underperformance in all substantive areas.

Negative controllers assume that, when people struggle, there is something wrong with them (CT3 2018). 4 When driven by the negative controller mindset, a leader who sees a teacher struggling thinks, “This teacher is struggling because he/she is not committed, or not willing to work hard enough, or blames kids, or is an excuse maker, or a racist.” Like the transactional manager, the negative controller misdiagnoses leadership challenges by making the fundamental attribution error —the assumption that people themselves are the reason for their lack of growth, rather than the conditions in which they are working. This assumption lets the negative controller off the hook. It also leads to negative relationships, insecure learners, and an emotionally toxic organizational culture.

The pacesetter is one of Daniel Goleman's six leadership styles (Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee 2002). 5 Pacesetters are driven by an admirable desire to reach and exemplify excellence. In schools, excellence is often equated with the social justice–related drive to close the opportunity gap for students, as measured by outcomes on achievement tests. This is mission‐driven work that attracts mission‐driven people. Leaders create organizational cultures around this goal that both deeply resonate with educators and create intense urgency. School leaders often assume that embodying this ideal means sacrificing themselves for the mission. This is an emotionally contagious phenomenon. When school leaders lead this way, their teams respond in kind.

While this approach may work for short periods of time, such as during start‐up or turnaround, it is not sustainable. Staff perceive their pacesetter leader as not caring about them as people. Schools and leaders who attempt to maintain the pacesetter approach to teaching and learning experience chronic stress. Teachers pass on their stress to students, who respond in kind. Performance of both adults and students decreases. Over time, there is significant teacher and leader attrition. The constant turnover of staff leads to even more urgency to develop new people quickly, which intensifies the pacesetter response over time.

Doers believe that their job is to the be the #1 performer (Charan 2011). 6 Leaders who demonstrate this mindset are usually promoted to their new roles in part because they were great doers in their previous roles, so the mindset and behaviors are deeply engrained. Often the doer hasn't been taught that, in their new role, they are supposed do less and instead direct other doers. Even when they have been taught, they struggle to let go of what served them and made them feel competent in the past. (In this way a mindset can shift from being a strength to an obstacle as one climbs to new levels of leadership.)

Doers do not delegate well, if at all. They tend to take on the work of others at the expense of doing their own work (which they are likely the only person in the organization qualified or tasked to do). They send the inadvertent message to their teams that they do not trust them to do their own work. Their teams become increasingly dependent on the doer to solve their problems for them. Doer leaders take on more and more while their teams do less. They become overwhelmed, drop balls more and more frequently, and communicate reactively. Doers lose credibility and sink into chronic stress, while their teams become less empowered and less effective over time.

While all seven of these self‐limiting mindsets are very personal in nature, this one—commonly called imposter syndrome or imposter phenomenon—is anchored most deeply in self (Mount and Tardanico 2014; Mount 2015). 7 Leaders struggling with imposter syndrome believe that they aren't really qualified for their job, that others believe this too, and that sooner or later they will be confronted about this ugly truth by the people they lead. In challenging moments, imposter syndrome sends leaders into their head, causing disconnection, indecisiveness, and avoidance of difficult decisions or actions in the moment. It leads to the very loss of credibility that the leader fears.

The imposter syndrome may be the deeper mindset at work when one or more of the other mindsets on this list shows up in practice. When combined with any of the others, the impact on leader behavior is multiplied.

Implementers believe that the leader's primary job is to execute on the best practices they are given by others. The implementer should not be confused with the doer, who is driven by the desire to be the performer. Implementer believes that the results will be better, and the process will be more efficient if they fully follow the school leadership playbook that they are given by their manager or their organization.

Our sector has done a lot of great work on building efficient systems in schools. We have gotten smarter about how to pool our resources to build better and better curriculum, and then to share it efficiently and widely, resulting in a significant, positive impact on student achievement. We have increasingly valued the implementer competency in our selection of leaders. And implementers are not wrong about the importance of being able to replicate great practices! Where they go wrong is in the degree to which they try to replicate.