Dan Kennedy

There are compelling elements (depending on a specific point of view or a desired outcome) that can be addressed to argue the strengths and/or weaknesses of either approach (compliance to directive/policy opposed to collaborating to create one). An aside I’d like to note here that compliance with a directive doesn’t necessarily mean faithful interpretation or implementation of said directive. The fact that there is a differing view by interpretation or implementation could argue that there’s some type of dysfunctional collaboration occurring even with compliance to directive in many situations (that is, groups will sometimes unite in their common unwillingness to comply with a specific directive). A very good idea can be interpreted and implemented in such a way that it would be difficult to recognize the original directive. Leaders of governmental agencies (the Federal government immediately comes to mind), can provide many examples where legislated directives were interpreted in such a manner that the lawmakers don’t even recognize the directive.

Addressing issues such as ‘waste’ or the ‘amount of time’ needed to address an issue may just be a convenience in selecting one approach over another. The convenience would be to the individual making the decision. While we would all like to think that decisions are made for the best reasons, the fact is many are made because an issue needs an immediate response. The selection of how to best address a problem should be based on the issue being addressed (implementation of a policy opposed to the formulation of a policy for example) as well as the players in shaping the policy.

Often it may appear that the ‘cost’ of time or waste is touted as the reason for arguing against a collaborative approach. Does this aid in the ongoing search for a permanent solution, or is it a ‘band aid’ applied quickly from above (wherever above may be)? Who really has the ultimate ‘vested’ interest in really solving the problem or addressing the issue? Will those who ‘comply’ with a directive really actively attempt to faithfully execute the strict intent?

Wagner addresses specifically the issue of leadership in education. Several key elements of leaders that foster more interaction from the other layers of professionals in the education process are mentioned in the article. The presentation of the example of standardized test scores as an indicator of educational success is used to provide evidence that dictated outcomes often can focus on an assessment rather than a goal. It seems to me that Wagner’s point is that the world today calls for a much larger view of what educators are supposed to do. This would definitely appear to indicate that the group best suited to address this would not be the legislature. Understanding the need for fiscal prudence or in getting the most for tax payers dollars shouldn’t drive an extremely complex issue into a funnel which results in test scores being used to assess failure or success. Who knows that better than the teachers in the trenches, but how often is their input requested? Does that mean that each and every area should be negotiated? Obviously no organization can operate in that manner, it would be impossible to accomplish. But even the most single-minded organization should be able to acknowledge the energy factor involved in collaborative approaches. Collaboration, if implemented correctly, motivates people, which usually can cause a positive paradigm shift in the organization’s structure.

With respect to a top down decision making approach, a really big question needs to be asked. Is the top down, compliance driven approach being used because of the 'robustness' of the approach in being able to efficiently and effectively address issues (historically being 'given' the directive from above)? Has it evolved over time because being given directives to follow is easier and faster than having to expose your own views, or possibly it is a cultural issue of some type? If you begin to question the outcome of the policy or directives wouldn't you at some point have to analyze the flow of the process used to create them if they fail? It would appear to me that many decisions, some with unfortunate long term effects, are made in the ‘heat of battle’ with the reasoning being that a quick decision needed to be made. As those decisions are made, I would think that it would be important to determine if this is intended to be the long term solution or a quick fix.

One interesting element causing a top down organizational structure could be just the basic structure of the organization. Is it possible that the formal commonly understood structure and the internal understanding of the structure lead an individual into nonactive acceptance? In other words, do we by our own learning process internalize and begin to believe that compliance is the expected, and over time the best method, or ‘don’t rock the boat’? Is it too much trouble to become actively involved and if so why? What may be some reasons why it's so difficult to motivate input?-- how an individual in that organization views their place in the either historically, philosophically, etc.). A central element to be considered is to work towards achieving a 'groundswell' of support that enables the development of new and different approaches to solutions. What techniques can be used to encourage that 'groundswell'? While it may be possible to establish a hierarchy of control (which really is in effect even in a collaborative approach) that will allow for what appear to be quicker resolution, is this kind of control better?