24
Systems thinkers in action: moving beyond the standards plateau Michael Fullan teachers transforming teaching In partnership with
Systems thinkers in action:moving beyond the standards plateauMichael Fullan
teachers transforming teaching
In partnership with
This is the third in the series of shortpublications by the DfES Innovation Unit,intended to stimulate debate within and beyond the teaching profession onkey issues. Previous pamphlets havetouched on the importance of networksin stimulating and transferring betterpractice1; and on how the concept ofpersonalisation has radical potential for transforming our education service2. This third concerns the systemic nature of modern education leadership. It isabsolutely appropriate that it should be authored by Michael Fullan, who has been a leader in the field for overthree decades.
1 Working Laterally: how innovation networks make an education epidemic by David Hargreaves2 Learning about Personalisation: how can we put the learner at the heart of the education system?
by Charles Leadbeater
6/03
ForewordDavid Hopkins – Chief Adviser to the Secretary of State on School Standards
In 1972, Michael published a seminalpaper on ‘The role of the user ineducational change’. The paper was
important because in it Michael wasoutlining a fundamentally new approach orparadigm in which to consider educationalchange. He argued against the ‘top-down’approach to reform that had characterisedall post war educational change efforts to that time. In its place he proposed anapproach to implementation that saw theuser, the implementer, as the key figure in the change process and reform asessentially a dialectical process. The geniewas out of the bottle, and Michael took to pursuing so productively ‘the meaningof educational change’ as the guidingleitmotif for his research, policy advice and practical school improvement workever since.
In Systems Thinkers in Action Michaelmakes a futuristic statement that movesbeyond the arid polarity between ‘topdown’ and ‘bottom up’. Here he arguesthat the future of educational reform liesnot only in co-production – the workingtogether of policy makers and consumerstowards a common goal, but also that theactors are involved not just with makingsense of the action but also in leading it.The argument is simple and profound: if
a system is striving for both ‘high equityand excellence’ then policy and practicehave to focus on system improvement. This means that a school head has to bealmost as concerned about the success ofother schools as he or she is about his orher own school. Sustained improvement ofschools is not possible unless the wholesystem is moving forward. And even morethan that: they need to make sense notjust of their own reality and work, but toreconceive the system at the same time.
And it is happening. Weekly I receiveemails from head teachers, and LEADirectors, who are increasingly forming the vanguard of our own systems thinkersin action. As they and we grapple to make general sense out of their individualcontext and progress we are beginning to use Michael’s insights to discipline ouractions and make significant gains for the system as a whole. Michael argues,compellingly, that this is the nature of theleadership which will be needed as wemove into a phase of reform characterisedby continuous improvement and capacity-building. I am certain this publication willengender a productive debate on this andrelated questions.
4/5
T he most noteworthy example of successful large-scale reform is the National Literacy and
Numeracy Strategy, which saw some20,000 primary schools move forward onaverage from 62% proficiency in literacyfor 11 year olds in 1997 to 75% in 2000.Similar results were obtained for numeracy.
This represents a remarkable achievement,but there are two related problems withthe strategy. First, results have plateauedsince 2000, holding at 75% through 2003.Second, heads and teachers do notdeeply own the strategy, which accountsfor the inability to go beyond 75%, not tomention the need for deeper and widerreform in pedagogy and other aspects of the curriculum. Lack of deep ownershipis not just a matter of commitment.Without engagement you don’t get theingenuity and creativity of practitioners that is necessary for developing new and better solutions.
To move beyond plateaus requires whatHeifetz and Linsky call tackling “adaptivechallenges” rather than “technicalsolutions”. The key difference between the two is that knowledge required for
addressing technical problems is currently available (it may still be difficult toimplement, but much is known in relationto the problem), while adaptive challengesgo beyond our current capacity or currentway of operating. The main properties of adaptive challenges include:
• the challenge consists of a gap betweenaspiration and reality, demanding aresponse beyond our current repertoire
• adaptive work to narrow the gaprequires difficult learning
• the people with the problem are theproblem, and they are the solution
• adaptive work generates disequilibriumand avoidance
• adaptive work takes time
(Heifetz & Linsky, 2002)
These new challenges represent a goldenopportunity to rethink how we approachreform drawing on the do’s and don’tslessons of the past. For example, on theone hand we know that even the mostsophisticated centrally-driven reform –what has come to be called “informedprescription” – can only take us part way
Even the most ambitious education reform initiatives amount to adjustments to the present system rather than a newand more fundamental way of working.
toward the solution; on the other hand,even highly supported decentralizedstrategies which seek “a thousand flowersto bloom” do not take us very far (notenough flowers bloom; good flowers do not get around or amount to criticalmass breakthroughs).
The solution we need must meet two main criteria:
• it must mobilise the ingenuity andcreative resources of a critical mass of the whole system
• it must foster a “we-we” or collectivecommitment and identity with thesystem as a whole, and itstransformation
Thus, the world of ideas and intellectualpower must marry the world of moralpurpose and collective identity. Putanother way, our approach to reform mustmake the extraordinary (i.e. meetingadaptive challenges) do-able. By workingtogether differently the goal is to producequality ideas and practices on an ongoingbasis, and to inspire collective effort to theextent that it becomes possible to achievebreakthroughs never before experienced.The best system produces a culture inwhich it becomes easier to accomplishmore by moving beyond dependence onthe heroic or martyr-like efforts of a few(which in any case does not producesustainable reform).
As we attempt to move beyond plateaus it will be easy to get the strategy wrong.We are not talking about replacing“informed prescription” with “informedprofessionalism”. We are not moving
from command and control to letting “a thousand networks” bloom. Instead, the goal is to create a new blendedsystem in which local and central levelsare interactively influential both within and across levels. It is crucial that plateau piercing not be seen as requiringdifferent strategies. The idea is to keep what is working and to developpowerful additional ideas for achieving new breakthroughs.
It is clear that we have to unleash,develop, and cultivate the intellectual and moral resources and commitment of those at local and community levelsacross the system. We have to, in JamesSurowiecki’s phrase, access “the wisdomof crowds”. Surowiecki suggests four key conditions for collective wisdom tofunction well:
1. the members need to feel independentof one another – where people’sopinions are not determined by thosearound them
2. the members need to be diverseenough to represent the range ofbackgrounds, needs, and interests of the group
3. they need to be sufficientlydecentralized, whereby people are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge
4. there has to be some means, eitherformal or informal, of aggregation orturning independent judgments orinformation into collective decisions
6/7
As I will argue later, we need first to sortout quality ideas, and then to incorporatethem into collective action. It is not somuch that we have to put blind trust in thewisdom of crowds, but rather we have to create the conditions under which localwisdom can be amassed and mined. In this respect, the role of the centre is to set up the conditions for cultivating andsorting the wisdom of the system. And itmust do this in the face of expectationsfrom the public for transparentaccountability, including monitoring andreporting on ongoing achievement.
Let us be clear (and this may not be asobvious as it seems), that if the goal is tomove beyond the standards plateau westill have to focus on the plateau problem(indeed, focus on it more intensely thanever with more parts of the systeminvolved in addressing it). This is MichaelBarber’s argument; “if we want to get offour present plateau we have to apply thelessons more deeply rather than abandonthem”. Whether one agrees with Barber’smore particular lessons (assert moralpurpose; restate the priority; build capacityto deliver the next step change; payattention to alignment; incentivisesuccess), we are after all talking abouttackling a particular plateau and goingbeyond it.
The difference is that we are now invitingthe system as a whole to engage in thisspecific adaptive challenge of reachinglevels never before achieved. Thechallenge does not have to be confined toliteracy and numeracy, but we had bettermove literacy and numeracy substantiallyforward. If informed prescription onlybrought us to 75%, what policies andstrategies are more likely to bring us to90%? I do not mean that we should benarrowly preoccupied with targets andtests, but that the goal should be toengage the ingenuity of those at the locallevel to help another step change that issimultaneously important to localcommunities and the system as a whole.
Homer-Dixon argues in The Ingenuity Gapthat “the complexity, unpredictability, andpace of events in our world…are soaring”,and that “if our societies are to managetheir affairs and improve well-being theywill need more ingenuity, that is, moreideas for solving their technical and socialproblems”. As a result, he says, we facean “ingenuity gap” – “a shortfall between[the] rapidly rising need for ingenuity and[its] inadequate supply”.
The beyond plateau problem is aningenuity gap problem. To address it, weneed to be able to mobilize, draw on, andreconcile the power, resources and actionof the centre on the one side, with theideas, wisdom, and engagement of thefield on the other side. We need a systemthat mitigates the weaknesses of bothcentral authority and local autonomy as it builds on their combined strengths.
“The role of the centre is to set up the conditions for cultivating and sorting the wisdom of the system.”
In my own view, the breakthrough we areseeking is best captured by the concept of “Systems Thinkers in Action” or whatcould be called ‘the new theoreticians’.The rest of this booklet elaborates on thispowerful concept, which can be definedas the presence and proliferation ofpractitioner leaders at all levels of thesystem who experience and base theirthoughts and actions on larger parts of the system as a whole, thereby producingother leaders who think and actaccordingly. We pursue this definition in the following two sections: What isSystems Thinking in Action? And, Howdo we get more of it?
What is systemsthinking in action? Peter Senge popularized the concept ofsystems thinking as “the fifth discipline”.The first four disciplines were: personalmastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning. Senge claimed thatsystems thinking integrated the other four disciplines. He states:
Systems thinking is a conceptualframework, a body of knowledge and tools that have been developed over
the past fifty years, to make full patternsclearer, and to help us see how to change them effectively. (my emphasis)
And again:
At the heart of a learning organization is a shift of mind—from seeing ourselves as separate from the world to connectedto the world, from seeing problems ascaused by something “out there” to seeinghow our own actions create the problemswe experience. A learning organization is a place where people are continuallydiscovering how they create their realityand how they can change it. (my emphasis)
Senge is theoretically on the right track(especially in the second quote), but, inthis context, systems thinking has donevirtually nothing to promote the “in action”component. We have made no gains in conceptualizing, let alone promoting,systems thinking on the ground, despiteSenge’s emphasis on using it to bringabout “effective changes”. Indeed, I would say that we cannot make advances in systems theory itself unless we learn theory by doing.
Practical systems theory addresses theentire system – what I have called the tri-level reform perspective: school andcommunity, district or local educationauthority (LEA), and state or national policy.Systems thinkers in action experience andtake into account all three levels (no matterat what level they reside) for two reasons:first, because they know that all threelevels impact each other, and second,because they are aware that in order tochange (transform) the larger system you
“To change organisations andsystems will require leaders to get experience in linking to other parts of the system.These leaders in turn musthelp develop other leaderswith similar characteristics.”
8/9
have to engage it. In other words, theyknow that context matters, for better orfor worse, and that part of their workentails changing context, which you canonly do by being active in wider contexts.
A new kind of leadership is necessary for breaking through the status quo.Systemic forces, sometimes called inertia,have the upper hand in preventing systemshifts. Therefore, it will take powerful,proactive forces to change the existingsystem (to change context). This can be done directly and indirectly throughsystems thinking in action. These newtheoreticians are leaders who workintensely in their own schools, or nationalagencies, and at the same time connectwith and participate in the bigger picture.To change organizations and systems willrequire leaders to get experience in linkingto other parts of the system. Theseleaders in turn must help develop otherleaders with similar characteristics.
Two concrete examples demonstrate this idea. First, when directors orsuperintendents of education transformthe culture of the LEA or district so thatschool heads interact with each other’sschools, help shape and reshape districtpolicies, and are exquisitely aware of whatthe district as a whole is attempting to do– including going beyond plateaus – wesee a definable movement in systemsthinking in action. Actions must be drivenby our two main criteria cited earlier: (i) thefocus must be on what David Hargreavesdescribed as “disciplining innovation” – thecontinuing identification of high leveragebest practices and in-depth interaction
conducive to transferring best ideas into practice, and (ii) the cultivation of a“we-we” or collective identity (in this case,laterally across schools and verticallybetween schools and the LEA). Oneindicator of collective identity is whenindividual school heads become almost as concerned about the success of otherschools as they are about their ownschool. When this happens greater systemknowledge and greater system identity arethe twin outcomes.
When best ideas are freely available andcultivated, and when collective identityprospers, we have a change in the verycontext of the local system. The context or system will change in a way thatbenefits all schools. And system change isthe kind of change that keeps on giving.
A second example concerns the role ofPrimary Strategy Consultant Leaders withinthe Primary Leadership Programme nowentering its second year. Over 1700 PrimaryStrategy Consultant Leaders, all heads withsuccessful track records in raising literacyand numeracy, have been trained to engagewith, support and challenge other primaryschools in their area. Around 7000 schools –over one third of all primary schools – havebeen involved in the first two years of the
“One indicator of collectiveidentity is when individualschool heads become almostas concerned about thesuccess of other schools as they are about their own school.”
programme. Improvements in Key Stage 2 results in English and mathematicsindicate that the programme is alreadyhaving a significant impact, even though it was not designed solely as a short-termintervention strategy. It is a step in the right direction, although a more radicalapproach might also apply itself acrossdifferent system levels.
At the present time in England two parallelemphases co-exist: one continues toemphasise standards and attainmentresults; the other sponsors networks oflearning communities. To go beyond theplateau will involve reconciling these twostrategies towards greater connectivity andcohesion. The whole must become greaterthan the sum of its parts. As Levin pointsout, networks of schools can be engagedin critiquing as well as pursuing nationalgoals, and central policies can be shapedand reshaped through continuousinteraction with the field.
The recently introduced Primary StrategyLearning Networks represent anotherexample of potential constructivecohesion, and reconciliation of the twoapproaches. In the course of the comingeighteen months, 1500 networks ofaround 6 primary schools are to besupported to establish themselves asengines of improvement. This and similarstrategies involve cultivating thedevelopment of quality networks workingwithin the parameters of national policyand local needs in order to foster, evaluateand spread high quality practice. Thisinitiative has the potential to join the
intellectual capital of the National Strategywith the social capital of local levelcollaboration to produce disciplined,purposive and locally owned innovation. If the initiative can be informed throughoutby emerging knowledge about hownetworks function most effectively – whichis becoming available from a number ofsources, particularly the NCSL – then itmay become a powerful assault on thestandards plateau.
The rest of this section provides aframework for considering the focus orcontent of systems thinking as a means for reconciling central and local forces. At the core of this framework is the linkageof systems thinking in action, sustainabilityand leadership.The kind of systemtransformation we need is one whichestablishes the conditions for sustainability(defined as the capacity of a system toengage in the complexities of continuousimprovement consistent with deep valuesof moral purpose), and the key driver that can get us there is a new form ofleadership which works on this agenda.What needs to be sustainable is notparticular practices but rather the capacityand process of continuous problem solvingand improvement. This is not simply linearimprovement. One can expect toencounter plateaus along the way, butingenuity represents the capacity to digdeeper in order to break through each one.
The agenda involves eight elements ofsustainability which leaders at all levelsmust address to enact systems thinking in action.
10/11
1. Public service with a moral purposeMoral purpose must transcend theindividual to become a quality oforganisations and the system itself. Bothneed to be committed to pursuing moralpurpose in all their core activities. I definemoral purpose in four ways:
• commitment to raising the bar andclosing the gap of student achievement
• treating people with respect – which isnot to say having low expectations
• orientation to improving the environment,including other schools within andbeyond the LEA
• engaging in the big picture of nationalpolicy and societal goals
2. Commitment to changingcontext at all levelsChanging whole systems means changingthe entire context within which peoplework. Researchers are fond of observingthat “context is everything”, usually inreference to why a particular innovationsucceeded in one situation but notanother. Systems thinkers in actionbasically say, if context is everything let’schange it for the better.
On a small scale, Gladwell has alreadydefined context as key in The Tipping Point:“the power of context says that what reallymatters is the little things”. And, if you wantto change people’s behaviour “you need tocreate a community around them, wherethese new beliefs could be practiced,expressed and nurtured”.
Systems thinkers in action createopportunities for people to interact beyondtheir own situation in order to change theclimate or context for getting things done.
3. Lateral capacity building through networksLateral capacity means deliberatestrategies where peers learn from eachother – across schools, across LEAs, and so on. Networks are not ends inthemselves and must be assessed interms of their impact on changing thecultures of schools, LEAs and the systemas a whole. David Hargreaves has madethe case for lateral learning and theconditions in which it flourishes. These include:
• sufficient opportunity for ongoingpurposeful exchange
• a limited focus which can be pursued in depth in order to identify specific,high-yield best practices
• mechanisms for transferring andimplementing best ideas
• developing and mobilizing leadership in many quarters
• motivation and ownership at the locallevel is deepened – a key ingredient for sustainability of effort
“Lateral capacity meansdeliberate strategies wherepeers learn from each other –across schools, across LEAs,and so on.”
• the focus of innovations must take intoaccount or otherwise link to the LEA and national system of priorities
Lateral capacity building is not aboutloose, diffuse networks. Exploration anddevelopment of new practice is evidencebased, focused and results in theaccumulation of leading practicespermeating the system.
The Leading Edge Partnership programmeis increasingly focused on the developmentof partnerships that characterise theHargreaves model. The programme seeksto identify, extend and share innovation andexcellence in ways that contribute tosystem-wide improvement.
4. New vertical co-dependent relationshipWe know that problems have to be solvedlocally. Solutions rely, at least in part, onusers/learners themselves and theircapacity to take responsibility for positiveoutcomes. The question is what is goingto motivate people to seek positiveoutcomes, and how are people andgroups to be held accountable? Theanswer is a mixture of “disciplined”collaborative networks on the one hand,and what David Miliband calls “intelligentaccountability” on the other. Networks dobuild in a strong, but not complete,measure of accountability. As suchcommunities interact around givenproblems, they generate better practices,shared commitment and accountability topeers and other constituencies.
In the Leading Edge Partnershipprogramme there is a shared 'learningchallenge'. All schools joining theprogramme in its second year are unifiedthrough addressing the achievement gapeither by working in partnership withschools struggling to raise standards or byaddressing issues of under-achievementamong pupils from poorer socio-economicbackgrounds and from particular minorityethnic groups.
There will always be a tension betweenlocal and vertical authority. Systemsthinking means that both parties areempowered and move toward mutualinfluence. In systems thinking, those atboth local level and at the centre take intoaccount each other’s world, i.e. theirworld-view enlarges. Recall Senge’sphrase –“a shift in mind from seeingourselves as separate from the world toconnected to the world” – in fact, as partand parcel of the world. Both groupsredefine their world to include the other aspart of the same system. Connectivity andcohesion are constantly cultivated, whilerecognising that the interests of local andcentral entities are in dynamic tension. The idea is to find complementary synergywhile appreciating differences.
The recent reintroduction of school andLEA-based self-evaluation strategiesrepresents an extremely valuable potentialtool for traversing the two worlds with asingle mechanism. Good self-evaluationfocuses on local development whileexplicitly addressing LEA and nationalpriorities, standards and performance.
12/13
There is still a tension, but a productiveone, in redefining the system as includinglocal, regional and national realities.
5. Deep learningSustainability requires continuousimprovement, adaptation and collectiveproblem solving in the face of complexchallenges that keep arising. Goingbeyond the standards plateau by definitionrequires deeper solutions. These solutionsare of two types. The first concernsteaching and learning and relatedpedagogy; we need disciplined innovationwhich zeros in on those innovations whichengage otherwise disengaged learners.
The second concerns changes in theculture of learning organisations. In aword, we need to create cultures ofsystems thinking in action. Clearly, deeppedagogy and deep learning cultures feedon each other. The reason we have notgone beyond plateaus is that we have notyet fostered and harnessed the creativity,commitment and access to leadingpractices across the system.
6. Dual commitment to short-term and long-term resultsShort-term progress can be accomplishedat the expense of the mid-to-long term, butthis need not necessarily be the case. LEAsand schools can set targets and take actionto obtain early results, intervene in situationsof poor performance all the while seekingdeeper change which could pay off downthe road. Over time, the system getsstronger and fewer severe problems occuras they are pre-empted by corrective actionsooner rather than later. The shorter-termresults are necessary to build trust with thepublic for continuous investment.
The matter of results raises the question of what kinds of outcomes we are talkingabout. Here the concept of ‘personalisedlearning’ is critical. David Miliband statesthat personalised learning involves“decisive progress in educationalstandards where every child matters”. The paradox is that personalised learningrequires system cohesion. To meet theneeds of every child, says Miliband, willrequire “a new relationship between theDepartment, LEAs and schools that bringsa sharper focus to our work”. Systems
Toyota’s foundation principle is: “Base your management decisions on a long-termphilosophy, even at the expense of short-term financial goals”. The long-termphilosophy at Toyota is comparable to our moral purpose: “Toyota’s strong sense of mission and commitment to its employees, the customer and society is thefoundation for all the other principles”. When it comes to moral purpose concerningshort and long-term goals, only a win-win relationship will do – one that gets short-term results, while simultaneously paving the way for long-term development.
thinking in action runs the risk of beinginterpreted as a call for abstract, diffuseaction. Let us remember that the goal is touse applied systems thinking in the serviceof providing sustained, coordinated effortin order to go beyond specific existingplateaus. Part and parcel of systemsthinking in action is focus, cohesion,evidence-based best practice, assessmentand accountability. Above all, it meansgreater connectivity within and amonglevels of the system because cohesioninvolves bringing diverse elementstogether amid common principles andhabits. It is less a matter of alignment, andmore a matter of permeable connectivity.
7. Cyclical energizingSustainability does not mean linear,upward success. It is cyclical for tworeasons. One has to do with energy andthe other with periodic plateaus whereadditional time and ingenuity are requiredfor the next adaptive breakthrough.Primary literacy and numeracy resultsplateaued because the set of strategiesthat brought initial success could not bemaintained, and were not powerful enoughto take us to higher levels.
To go beyond plateaus we need furtherinnovative work to investigate, learn,experiment, and develop better solutions.Systems thinkers in action actually createthe intellectual (ideas) and moral (purposeand social commitment) conditions thatincrease motivation without sappingenergy. Put another way, because theideas are better, and because people arecommitted to each other, more can get
done with less effort. The new theoreticiansin action keep an eye on energy levels(overuse and underuse) and build the kindof cultures that are sensitive to overloadand to energizing conditions. Energy, nottime, is the key to sustainability.
8. The long lever of leadershipIf a system is to be transformed, leadershipat all levels must be the primary engine.The main work of leaders is to help put in place all eight elements of sustainabilityincluding this one – fostering leadership in others. To do this we need a systemlaced with leaders who are trained to thinkin bigger terms and to act in ways thataffect larger parts of the system. One ofthe marks of systems thinkers in action is not just their impact on the bottom lineof student achievement, but also equallyhow many good leaders they develop who represent a critical mass for goingfurther. By definition, good system leaders directly spawn and develop other system leaders.
Having laid out the framework, there are at least two implications for those in theeducation system—one is for all leaders;and the other for leaders who are preparedto take direct responsibilities for improvingthe system. Relative to the former, thegeneral argument is that all school leaders,for example, should redefine their existenceas being part of the larger system. Againthis is Senge’s “not seeing ourselves asseparate from the world”. In practical termsit means that every leader should commitin principle to sharing school knowledge
14/15
with other schools, and to learning fromother schools. This also includes seekingexperiences for themselves and others thattake them outside their own settings.
The other role involves explicit assignmentsto promote system improvement. There arecurrently a number of roles of this type inEngland in which NCSL, DfES, and othershave invested.
Clearly the idea is that these two forces –every leader, and leaders with systemresponsibilities – should feed on each other and create greater system awarenessand engagement. When this happens on a large scale, not only does the systemtransform (context changes), but it keepson transforming by definition becauseindividuals, groups and the systembecome more indivisible as they are trulyinteracting as a system.
Philosophical? Yes, but also practicalbecause innovative ideas that solve deeperproblems, and collective motivation thattakes us beyond previous plateaus, are the litmus tests of highly engaged systems.
How do we get moresystems thinkers in action? If we acknowledge that the educationalproblems we need to address in the 21stcentury require the intellectual ingenuity,shared moral purpose, and engagedenergy of large swaths of the system,systems thinkers in action provide thephilosophical and practical means of
realising these synergistic forces.
We are left with the chicken and eggproblem. If we need systems thinkers in order to develop other systems thinkers (in order to transform the system), butdon’t have enough of them in the shortrun to make a difference, how do we go about getting more of them?
I won’t take the time to analyse all theobstacles in the way – we can immediatelyimagine several: policies that rely wholly oncompetition, inadequate preparation priorto and in leadership posts, overload, lackof time, punitive accountability schemes,and so on. We need to acknowledge why present leadership development and appointment procedures areinadequate, and, correspondingly, focuson how we might deliberately go aboutdeveloping systems thinkers in action.
It will come as no surprise to hear that the only way to do it is to base it on the “in action” part, but first we can considerwhat will not work, or at least is notsufficient. For example, we are not talkingabout “letting a thousand networks bloom”. We need networks and exchanges thatmeet the systems thinking in action criteriadiscussed earlier, and that do not dissipateenergy by overcommitting leaders tomultiple networks simultaneously.
What will also not be sufficient is to build in systems thinking into leadershipqualifications frameworks. This should be done, but it is not the main point.Qualifications frameworks are insufficientbecause they suffer from “theindividualistic bias”, that is to say that
“What we need are cultureswhich are established on thepremise that current andfuture leaders learn in context.”
individuals as individuals meet thequalifications (even if some of theexperiences are team based) detachedfrom their home contexts. The danger isbest captured in the admonition “neversend a changed individual back into anunchanged environment”.
What we need are cultures which areestablished on the premise that current and future leaders learn in context. Whenyou learn in context two things happen. One is that, by definition, the learning isspecific to the contexts which you areexperiencing. The other is that because you are learning in context you are doing so with others. Thus, shared ideas andcommitment are simultaneously beingcultivated. Pfeffer and Sutton make a similarpoint when they propose embedding “moreof the process of acquiring new knowledgein the actual doing of these tasks and less in formal training programmes that arefrequently ineffective”. Nothing beats learningin context.
To the charge that learning in contextmeans you are only learning about thestatus quo, we should note that the verypremise of systems thinking is that youcontinually expand the contexts which you experience and learn from as youseek solutions to complex adaptivechallenges. Learning in wider contextsleads to changing these very contexts as one interacts with others to developnew solutions.
The goal of developing systems thinkers inaction leads us to a radically differentapproach to leadership development andselection. School systems have terrible ornon-existent leadership succession plans,often including the over reliance oncharismatic or highly visible leaders tobring about what turns out to be episodicchange. What is needed instead is theselection of leaders who have a trackrecord and commitment to developingother leaders on the job throughexpanding their learning contexts.
Henry Mintzberg’s devastating critique ofexisting MBA programmes launches asimilar claim. He argues forcefully that MBAprogrammes develop the wrong people inthe wrong way with corruptingconsequences for “the education process”,“management practices”, “organizationalfunctioning” and “social institutions”.
Mintzberg’s conclusions corroborate theargument we have been pursuing. Heobserves that “successful management isnot about one’s own success but aboutfostering success in others”. And, we need“programs designed to educate practicingmanagers in context; (such leadership)has to be learned, not just by doing it butby being able to gain conceptual insightwhile doing it”.
The goal, says Mintzberg, is not just todevelop better leaders, but also to developthe organisation and to improve the largersystem (shades of the tri-level model). We need, according to Mintzberg,“management development to promoteorganization development to attain socialdevelopment”. Add to this Mintzberg’s
16/17
emphasis on the need to develop “a worldly mindset” where one’s ownmindset gets enlarged through otherpeople’s worlds, and you have aresounding endorsement of systemsthinkers in action. Such leaders changecontext by immersing themselves andothers in those very contexts.
There are three implications for thedirection of policy and practice. First, I have already outlined the consequences
for leadership training and development.Leadership development should not justbe about qualifications frameworks orabout diffuse experiences in networks. We need deliberate, focused learning incontext around significant problems – ledby systems thinkers in action who modeland mentor job-embedded learning inexpanded contexts.
Although it focuses on one company, Liker’s analysis of what makes Toyotaconsistently successful over time reinforces many of the points made by Mintzbergand elsewhere in this pamphlet. We have already seen the first foundation principlethat underpins all other 13 management principles at Toyota. Several other Toyotaprinciples are consistent with our analysis:
• build a culture of stopping to fix problems, to get quality right the first time
• grow leaders who thoroughly understand the work, live the philosophy and teach it to others
• respect your network of partners and suppliers by challenging them and helping them improve
• go and see for yourself to thoroughly understand the situation
• become a learning organisation through relentless reflection and continuous improvement
The point is not to endorse Toyota’s culture per se but rather to appreciate the points of resonance with an increasingly clear picture of what is wrong with leadership and system development in education, and why and how it should be rethought and redone. In short, we have the philosophical, conceptual and design elementsnecessary to build a radically new approach to system transformation through thedevelopment of systems thinkers in action.
Second, every policy or strategic initiativeshould be informed by how it will furtherconnectivity of local and central ideas.Primary Strategy Learning Networks,mentioned earlier, is a case in point.
Third, there are implications for new formsof accountability. A combination of localself–review and external assessment willbe required. This is a difficult but potentiallyhigh yield strategy which links assessmentfor (organisational) learning with transparentaccountability. Moves in this direction are underway in England and this isencouraging. In addition, however, if we value and promote the assumption of broader responsibility by systemsthinkers in action, then the accountabilityframework should reflect this. Forexample, schools in a given locality shouldtake responsibility for the performance ofall the students in their area as well as fortheir individual institutions.
It’s going to be hard It is going to be hard on every level. Thenew system will not be as politically simpleas the present one. It is always easier forpoliticians to endorse ad hoc solutionsthan systemic ones which are morecomplex, difficult and take more time. It will be hard on the ground because it is extremely difficult to change cultures.Regressive actions are easier and moretempting than progressive actions whichrequire ongoing engagement of others.
On the positive side, the moral andintellectual appeal of going beyondplateaus has an enormous push and
pull combination in its favour – the pushbecause we know that current strategiesare no longer adequate for moving forward;the pull because we can see and sensethe potential power and excitement of new learnings and accomplishments never before achieved.
In line with the basic premise of thispamphlet, I would argue we need to getgoing by doing it – through purposefulexamples of new learnings in expandedcontexts. Of all the things we need tokeep in the forefront of our thinking, twostand out for me. One is the merging ofindividual, organisational and societaldevelopment in the same action. Everynew leader needs to be cognizant that heror his actions should always be judged interms of how they serve or contribute toall three purposes, usually in a mutuallyinclusive, synergistic manner.
The second key for developing moreleadership is not so much for leaders tobecome more global minded, but rathermore worldly. To learn in expandedcontexts is to become more worldlyknowledgeable about other people’sexperiences, ideas and purposes. Theidea is to reinvent the future by locating,expanding, and creating from what we have in the world in the present.Intellectual ingenuity and new levels ofcollective commitment will be the coredrivers to achieve system transformation.
“Intellectual ingenuity and newlevels of collective commitmentwill be the core drivers toachieve system transformation.”
18/19
The basic message of this pamphlet isthat rigid boundaries at all levels shouldgive way to partnerships (horizontally and vertically) which pursue the principlesand assumptions of taking collectiveresponsibility for achieving new levels ofperformance. It takes system change togo beyond plateaus.
Join the debateMoving beyond the standards plateau is a critical issue which will require theengagement of the system as a whole.You can enter into the debate about how this can be achieved and tell us what you think as part of the InnovationCommunity atwww.standards.dfes.gov.uk/innovation-unit. Michael Fullan will also be respondingpersonally to comments when he attendsthe online talk2learn ‘hotseat’ for afortnight shortly after the publication ofSystems Thinkers in Action. We will thenpublish your comments, suggestions and ideas.
DfES Innovation UnitThe DfES Innovation Unit acts as acreative catalyst for change in the schoolsector. We do this by forming an arenabetween policy-makers and practitionersso that all parties can work together todevelop innovative responses to thelearning-related challenges that face theeducation system. Where appropriate, we also work with other organisations.
We are a small team of InnovationDirectors. We have all been teachers and then either become headteachers or worked in LEAs at a senior level. Someof us have also previously worked inUniversities, the DfES, the GTC and theBBC, and one of us is returning to theDfES. We’re supported by a small civilservice team.
Our vision is one in which professionalsfrom all areas of education share successfuldevelopments in an accountable systemwhere disciplined, informed innovation is the norm.
We aim to help every part of the systembe confident in its ability to do this soinnovation that genuinely improves teaching,raises standards and makes learningpersonal and powerful for every studentflourishes. We see innovation as a keyroute to excellence and equity.
The Unit provides strategic direction toexisting system-wide programmes, and to ideas in development. It seeks out and supports projects from practitioners or elsewhere that have the potential toprovide strategic intelligence or widespread
practical benefit for the system. It providesopportunities for practitioners, policy-makers and other interested parties toshare and develop their insights in open-source settings.
One of the Unit’s activities is to manage a piece of legislation called The Power toInnovate. This is the provision whereby theSecretary of State can exempt schools,LEAs and Education Action Zones wishingto test new ideas for raising standards ineducation from any education legislationthat is preventing them putting their ideasinto practice.
Log onto our website to find out moreabout the Power to Innovate, ourpublications and materials, and the newthemes we are exploring. We’d also like to extend a warm invitation to all teachersand headteachers to join our very livelyonline Innovation Community. You can do this via our website. We look forward to hearing from you.
Mike Gibbons, Maureen Burns, Anne Diack,Valerie Hannon, Deryn Harvey, Toby Salt
www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/innovation-unit
020 7925 6165
DfES Innovation UnitFloor 4Department for Education and SkillsSanctuary BuildingsGreat Smith StreetLondonSW1P 3BT
20/21
National College forSchool Leadership(NCSL)NCSL was formed in 2000 to provide a single national focus for schoolleadership development. In collaborationwith Demos, the Innovation Unit, OECD,Hay Group and many others, it encouragesnational and international debate onleadership issues.
Through its website, online communitiesand research publications, NCSL acts as a primary resource for school leaders. It also provides support through itsleadership development programmes,ranging from opportunities for bursars to headteachers to leadership teams.
Working directly with schools, NCSL is leading on workforce remodelling, the national primary strategy and increased collaboration andnetworking among schools.
The cumulative goal of all these activities is to have every child in a well-led school,and every school leader committed tocontinuous learning.
www.ncsl.org.uk
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Department forEducation and Skills. We are publishing them in the interests of stimulating educational debate.
ReferencesBarber M (2004)Plateaus and How to Get off ThemSpeech to the Chief Education Officer’s Conference
Department for Education and Skills (2004)Primary Network and Leading PracticeDfES
Fullan M (2003a) Change Forces with a VengeanceRoutledgeFalmer
Fullan M (2003b) The Moral Imperative of SchoolLeadershipCorwin Press
Fullan M (2005)Leadership and Sustainability: systems thinkers in actionCorwin Press
Gladwell M (2000) The Tipping PointLittle, Brown
Hargreaves A & Fink D (in press) Sustainable LeadershipJossey-Bass
Hargreaves D (2004) Working Laterally: how innovationnetworks make an education epidemicDfES Innovation Unit
Heitfetz R & Linsky M (2002) Leadership on the Line: staying alive through the dangers of leadingHarvard Business School Press
Homer-Dixon T (2000) The Ingenuity GapKnopf
Levin B (2004) Connecting Central Policy andNetworked Learning Communities Paper prepared for DfES/NCSL seminaron Evaluation of the Networked LearningCommunities Initiative
Miliband D (2000) Personalised Learning: building new relationships with schools Speech to the North of England Education Conference
Liker J (2004) The Toyota WayMcGraw Hill
Mintzberg H (2004) Managers not MBAsBerrett-Koehler
Perkins D (2003) King Arthur’s Roundtable: howcollaborative conversations createsmart organizationsWiley
Pfeffer J & Sutton R (2000) The Knowing-Doing Gap: how smartcompanies turn knowledge into actionHarvard Business School Press
Senge P (1990) The Fifth DisciplineDoubleday
Surowiecki J (2004) The Wisdom of CrowdsDoubleday
Copies of this publication can be obtained from:
DfES PublicationsPO Box 5050Sherwood ParkAnnesleyNottingham NG15 0DJ
Tel: 0845 6022260Fax: 0845 6033360Textphone: 0845 6055560Email: [email protected]
Please quote ref: DfES/1060/2004
You can download this publication atwww.standards.dfes.gov.uk/innovation-unit or www.teachernet.gov.uk/publications
© Crown copyright 2004Produced by the Department for Education and Skills Extracts from this document may be reproduced for non-commercial or training purposes on the condition that the source is acknowledged.
Michael Fullan’s argument is simple and profound: if asystem is striving for both ‘high equity and excellence’then policy and practice have to focus on systemimprovement. This means that a school head has to be almost as concerned about the success of otherschools as he or she is about his or her own school.Sustained improvement of schools is not possibleunless the whole system is moving forward. And evenmore than that: they need to make sense not just of their own reality and work, but to reconceive thesystem at the same time. Michael Fullan is Professor of Policy Studies at OISE / University of Toronto and is SpecialAdviser on Education to the Premier and Minister of Education of Ontario, Canada.
He works as an adviser and developer in countries around the world and his bookshave been translated into many languages. His most recent publication is Leadership and Sustainability.
