Exes and Whys

Reading my most recent posts surely you, my faithful readers, can discern that I am seeking to understand, share and process my pending departure from Edna ISD.  You also know I am prone to analogies and metaphors.  I am soon to be the ex-superintendent of Edna.  Why?  Exes and Whys.

Two events prompt this post.  I see folks around town all the time, and many have asked in a friendly and jovial way, “Have you got it under control?”  My response typically is, “That is not my goal and it would be impossible anyway.  I cannot even control when I get the hiccups much less 130 professionals and 1500 kids.”  Secondly, after years and years of research inside and outside of education it appears to me we are absolutely determined to do what may sound good to some but what we know will not work.  That is very frustrating.  I mourn for the kids we harm using new reform strategies while I rail against those strategies.

This post will likely be self-serving.  (Perhaps all previous posts have been likewise.)  But in the context of exes and whys I am reminded not of mathematical graphs but of Douglas McGregor.  Dr. McGregor was a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and died in 1964 at age 58.  His book, the Human Side of Enterprise (1960), applied Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory to scientific management and forever altered the way we look at leadership in organizations.  McGregor set the stage for Herzberg, Drucker, Bennis, Demming, et.al. who have written modern leadership theory and analyzed modern leadership.  (If you are at all interested in Leadership I highly recommend the above authors, plus Meg Wheatley, and Terry Deal, especially Deal’s, Shaping School Culture: The Heart of Leadership.  My favorite quotation from his book is, “The heart of leadership lives in the heart of the leader.”)  Back to McGregor:

McGregor identified two leadership styles used to motivate or control employees that he labeled Theory X and Theory Y.  X’s and Y’s.  The question is and has been, what motivates people to go to work each morning?  What motivates some to do their absolute best and others to seek to perform at the minimal acceptable level?  Why do some get a tremendous amount of satisfaction from their work and others dread it?  McGregor discussed the assumptions inherent in the mind of managers and how these assumptions answer the questions above.  McGregor defines two sets of assumptions and answers to those questions:  X’s and Y’s.

Theory X is the pervasive leadership style in much of corporate America, especially in organizations that are semi-skilled labor driven and assembly line product producers.  Theory X managers assume the following regarding their employees:  they dislike working, they are unmotivated, they avoid responsibility and need to be directed, they need to be constantly supervised, they will perform the minimum required and seek the maximum reward, and they need to be offered incentives to perform.  X’s assume all people are extrinsically motivated.  The X’s promote centralized control and procedures and can rapidly develop top-heavy organizations.  The X’s boss people around.  There are more, but these are the key components.  A Theory X manager creates a certain kind of culture, especially in schools.  Though research consistently shows that most people do not respond well to Theory X, it is the most pervasive form of management or leadership.  If you are working for a Theory X person do not expect to be praised, valued, or trusted. 

Theory Y managers on the other hand assume the following about their employees:  they will take responsibility for their performance, they can be trusted, they are motivated to do their best, they seek perspective and influence beyond their job description, they do not need direction or supervision, they assume work is meaningful, and they seek to solve problems creatively and collaboratively.  Y’s assume all people are intrinsically motivated.  The Y’s promote decentralized leadership and promote local leadership with folks at the lowest end of the organizational chart participating in decisions that impact them. 

Theory X organizations work on a carrot and stick basis; Theory Y organizations seek to promote all their employees, find ways to praise and reinforce independent autonomous actions, and worry less about organizational charts.  McGregor concluded that in some settings, for instance large manufacturing settings where most of the work is routine and repetitive, that Theory X is most likely to emerge and may be most appropriate.  (Interesting that Ouchi’s Theory Z, an analysis of Japanese management styles assumes just the opposite and employees on the assembly line are involved and empowered just like Theory Y.)

I am a Theory Y guy.  I assume the best about our staff, both in plurality and in singularity.  I know teachers will not perform better if I constantly monitor them.  I know administrators will not perform better if I am an omnipresent supervisor and micro manager.  I know organizations, especially organizations staffed mostly with professionals, are more likely to grow and succeed and offer satisfaction and meaning to the employees under a Theory Y management style.  I do not believe people improve or organizations improve if they are fearful of those in power seats.  Do I have to become a Theory X guy sometimes?  Sure.  When we detect an employee operating like the assumed Theory X employee, we attempt Theory Y solutions first, and failing that then resort to Theory X steps to remove them.

I have observed trends in my career that I cannot back with research, but will argue that at least in my experience, are most characteristic.  Coaches tend to be Theory X guys.  Band directors tend to be Theory Y guys.  Boards tend to be Theory X guys, and principals want a supe who is a Theory Y guy, even if they are a Theory X principal.  Theory Y guys get burned because they trust, they assume the best about those they work with and work for, and will always be surprised to learn that someone in the organization has betrayed them, used them, or has simply been operating on a personal rather than organizational agenda.  Such wounds go with the Theory Y territory.  No such wounds exist in the Theory X territory where it is assumed everyone in the organization is loafing and doesn’t care and must be constantly monitored to improve.

Plus, if you want to feel like a “boss” you are likely to be a Theory X guy.  This is the classic mistake of first year administrators. 

If a senator feels obligated to determine which instructional resources a teacher should use, is he an X or a Y?  If a legislature feels obligated to design a monitoring system that collects “performance based data” and holds every system accountable because if they don’t educators will be slackers, are they an X or Y legislature?  If a school board tends to engage in personnel evaluations, line by line budget discussions, and prescribes specific monitoring and accountability behaviors are they an X or a Y board?  If a superintendent consistently engages professionals in discussions and decision making regarding best practice for the sake of kids is he an X or a Y supe?  It is very difficult to practice professional leadership using Theory Y assumptions in a world that assumes only Theory X will work.

Theory X folks will promote constant school monitoring, school to school competition, private sector competition within and between schools, teacher incentive plans at the same time teacher quality measures increase.  In other words, the current reform movement is Theory X driven.

So, I am on the verge of being the Ex-Superintendent, though I never was an X Superintendent.  The whys of that are mostly irrelevant because I am a Y Superintendent and assumed those I work with would assume the same about me I assumed about them: people can be trusted to be open and honest, people can be trusted to act more in the interest of the organization than personal agendas, and people want to do their best for intrinsic reasons and respond better to coaching and support than negative sanctions. 

Theory X folks will find self-justification because there will be more and more employees who act based on the X assumption that they are unmotivated because of the Theory X leadership.  Likewise, Theory Y folks will find self-justification as more and more employees will demonstrate intrinsic motivation because of the Theory Y leadership.  Each theory ends up self-fulfilling their assumptions as employees respond to the style of leadership they experience.  Assume the best you get the best, assume the worst you get the worst.  One would think everyone would shift to Theory Y, but Theory X folks have a hard time risking the assumptions of Theory Y.  If you are a Y, you are not personally in control.

X’s and Y’s.

Exes and Whys.

So I am an Ex partly because I am a Y.  I do not know exactly why, but I cannot be an X.

I do know X’s and Y’s.

I know some whys; I do not know them all.

I do know I am soon to be the Ex.

That’s one of the reasons why.