act globally, think locally

I know, you think that I have that backwards. Be patient.

Think globally, act locally…that is the idealist view. The organization creates a lofty vision statement and an equally esoteric mission statement, providing evidence of some highfalutin thinking. Committees are created that include every imaginable stakeholder, perhaps a consultant is hired to facilitate the process, the resulting documents are trumpeted on the website and letterhead, and plaques are placed throughout building attesting to the energy that went into creating it (sometimes, coincidentally of course, this all happens immediately prior to an accreditation visit). With all the energy directed to the global thinking, the hope is that the actual daily interactions support the ideals.

The question is: Do the daily actions within an organization support the grandiose ideals? The classic example; a school’s Statement of Beliefs includes the phrase “high expectations for ALL students”. But what if the reality is different, if the casual off-the-record conversations of teachers do not echo that sentiment? What if the local actions do not mirror the global beliefs? The discontinuity exposes global thinking as impotent, there is no action.

If teachers reason that the cause of students’ low grades is the result of “lack of homework completion” or “lack of parental involvement”, and the teachers offer that statement in a manner that suggests that those issues fall outside the bounds of their control, then minimal energy will be directed to solving the problem of low grades. The “high expectations” have been downsized by the rationalization of extraneous factors. If enough teachers voice this sentiment, then it becomes part of the norm…a culture of low expectations that is created to deal with the high frustration.

Successful schools establish a system of global-level actions, designing systemic responses to recurrent problems. The intervention needs to be premeditated and automatically engaged. The action needs to be implemented at the organizational (read that as global) level. For example, a student’s performance on a state level exam automatically places them in a class. Bingo, done deal. Why wait for someone to notice poor performance, bring it to the student support team, complete the paperwork, conduct some testing, convene another meeting, and then maybe two months later put a program in place? If you know that every year a certain segment of your student population will need additional academic or behavioral interventions, then the school needs to have a systemic response that is immediately implemented.

You don’t reinvent the wheel for every time you have a flat tire, you just put on the spare that you have readily available.

The lack of established protocols to respond to students with low performance outcomes may indicate that the majority of the teachers have divorced themselves from accepting responsibility. The systemic response will indicate baseline attitudes/thinking. Global thinking is an indicator of local actions. If a strong systemic set of protocols is lacking, then the prerequisite for action is contingent on a one person taking the initiative to instigate the process.

Local actions are contingent on the actions of an individual.

Local actions are contingent on the actions of an individual. This is the problem: local actions rely on the efforts of individuals. Depending on the culture and climate of the building, local actions may require a Herculean level of energy and perseverance by that individual to choreograph a response (if there is no global action that serves as an efficient conduit). If the grass roots culture is pessimistic, then it becomes another hurdle that impedes the individual from acting on behalf of the student.

Steve Johnson’s book, Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software, provides multiple examples of what rules of operation emerge from within organizations. My favorite excerpt from the book concerns the foraging of ants. You may have noticed that ants often appear to be following an invisible trail. This is because ants emit chemicals that ala Hansel and Gretel outline their trail. Other ants can then trace the chemicals to the food source. The successful outcome is all premised on a simple thought, more chemicals equals more food. This simple rule compels even more ants to follow the trail, further enhancing the path to success. What emerges from this local rule, ant senses chemical so ant follows chemical trail to food, is a system that supports the success of the colony.

The take-away from all this is that the amount of organizational energy put into creating a mission or vision needs to replicated in creating a set of protocols that establish automatic global actions triggered by student performance data. As Steve Johnson states, global-level behavior of a dynamic self-organized system is predicted by the type of low level rules. Go back, re-read that sentence again. Or allow me to translate: Global-level actions are determined by local-level thinking (rules)…so act global, think local.

Make a good day,
Tod


PS. Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The connected lives of ants, brains, cities, and software. New York: Touchstone. His Amazon Books website: http://www.amazon.com/Steven-R.-Johnson/e/B000APC0M6/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0