Theory or Recipes?

When teaching children leadership, should we emphasize conceptual frameworks, theories, and principles or on rote lists, leadership formulas, or behavioral scripts, or some combination of both?

Procedures and other leadership 'recipes' work well enough in routine task environments and predictable situations while they are children, but they tend to limit effectiveness in new problem situations and in chaotic unpredictable environments as they grow older.

So because children thrive with a greater degree of order, perhaps we start with basic rules of thumb, but as they grow, we need to ensure an understanding of leadership principles and concepts to help them be more capable of creative and adaptive behavior.

As our world seems to accelerate, it seems a reasonable assumption that, in the kind of complex changing environment in which our children will become leaders, that they will need to be analytical, flexible, and creative. It may help to think of leadership as an adaptive capability. We teach them the theoretical foundations so they can achieve insight and predict human behavior to some degree. The decision cycle time for leaders is shrinking and the children will need to, as future adult leaders,  come to the situation as they are. There is not the time to prepare when the moment of testing occurs.

Ornstein and Hunkins (1993, p. 184) indicated that a theory is a “device for interpreting, criticizing and unifying established laws, modifying them to fit data unanticipated in their formation, and guiding the enterprise of discovering new and more powerful generalisation.”

Bernath and Vidal (2006, p 3) states that "Theories imply a systematic ordering of ideas about the phenomena of our field of inquiry and are usually of two kinds. One is concerned with understanding, the other with explanation and prediction."

Bernath and Vidal (2006, p 4) states, "The Greek word theorein meant to look upon, to observe, to consider,to contemplate; and the noun theoría meant looking at, looking more closely, observation, consideration, insight and scientific contemplation. The goal of these activities was to ascertain truth. The basic meaning of the word is still valid and underpins most of our modern definition of theory."

So is using theory, causal models, behavioral analysis, and other systematic efforts to identify underlying regularities and patterns in leadership applicable with children? Some leadership practitioners I have spoken to object to focusing on theory with adults or children. They bring up a valid argument, that simply learning the principles of leadership and rules of thumb will not make someone a skilled leader. I have validated this in coaching other leaders. But leadership can be taught. I have both learned it, taught it, and helped others practice it better. Theory helps to leverage our understanding and predict to a useful degree.

As with all things with children, theory has to be introduced a little at a time, rather than all at once. The point is not to get it over with, but rather to help them see and do better. Bernath and Vidal (2006, p 6) go on to say, "At elementary levels the whole of a course can be – and in my view should be –developed as a conversation, preferably of a Socratic type, to help students reach their goals." This is sound advice for teaching leadership theory to children. Conversation and spending time with children, being present, helps them stay engaged for learning.

Leadership is a practical performing art, valued in many organizations because of its decisive effects in preparing people for, and getting them through, trying circumstances and achieving organizational goals and objectives in a repeatable way.

Leaders make use of everyday processes of relationship building and social influence to get things done. So, an understanding of these processes and insight into how they might be most appropriately applied can improve individual and collective performance.

This is why we should teach theory. Even to children in small bites with application. The recipes and heuristics are a good starting point, but can only take them so far.

(Sources:
This article is not  my work. It is someone else's ideas applied in the context of teaching children leadership. Modified only slightly from the Leadership in the Canadian Forces, Conceptual Foundations Manual 2005

Ornstein, A., & Hunkins, F. (1993). Curriculum foundations, principles, and theory. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.

Bernath, Ulrich and Vidal, Martine. (2006). “The Theories and the Theorists: Why Theory is Important for Research”)

A rose by any other name is still a rose

Here is a quote I saw that seems appropriate for teaching leadership to children.

“In any Army [organization/team/family], in any time, the purpose of ‘leadership’ is to get the job done. Competent military [organization/team/family] leaders develop trust, focus effort, clarify objectives, inspire confidence, build teams, set the example, keep hope alive, rationalize sacrifice. For this century or the next, there is little mystery about requisite leader competencies or behaviors. Desirable qualities and skills may vary a bit, but the basic formula for leader success has changed little in 2,000 years.”

~Lieutenant-General (ret’d) Walter F. Ulmer Jr., US Army

With the explosion of information on the internet, and the tendency of profit-seeking organizations to relabel a 2,000 year old leadership principle so they can sell their program or book, some may be overwhelmed with all the literature on leadership. The core principles have transferred to every organization and job I've had. I have watched coaches on all of our kids teams excel or not at these core principles and competencies. I have watched volunteer organizations succeed or not as they applied these principles. Leadership is simpler than many today would have you think.

Bill Cosby used to joke that only in the modern world do we seemingly have to buy books on how to have babies. People have been successfully having babies for thousands of years, but we need books to do it right. The crowd laughs.

Is it not similar with leadership. It has been practiced and passed on for thousands of years. Some organizations have spent more time observing and articulating its principles. Some people pay more attention to the historical record and the cumulative wisdom to-date to their advantage.

Become aware and apply what you learn. That is the basic improvement process. Form a hypothesis, conduct tests within your sphere of influence, objectively look at the results, share what you learn. It is the scientific method applied to leadership development. Instead of making many small course corrections as we go, many of us reflexively operate from our "scripting" programmed into our RAM memories by the regular examples of adults in our immediate childhood environment and simply replay our scripts without thinking through our methods or evaluating the degree of effectiveness. Would you want to fly on an airline whose pilots left it all to the autopilot without checking how they are doing? Do we want to leave our leadership effectiveness to our unevaluated scripting?

So we can test ideas on our own, but is this the best course?  We can learn all the lessons on our own, or we can take advantage of those lessons learned from previous leaders, standing on the shoulders of giants, as Thomas Edison said.

If we apply the "we've evolved beyond them" thinking to human behavior lessons of the past, do we not miss out on vicarious learning and have to relearn lessons for ourselves? This is a method, but less effective. Human behaviors seem slow to change. Literature from ancient times contains examples of almost the same challenges with human behaviors then as we seem to have now. Hmmm.

Even if we call it XYZ today instead of ABC then, does the underlying principle still apply? Is it still relevant?

I have read countless articles that decry the "military style" of leadership, and yet when you get past stereotypes of yelling "go go go" and ordering people around and into the specifics of which leadership principles work effectively and which perform to some lessor degree, I think Walter Ulmer is correct. The core set hasn't changed much. Leadership practitioners have varying degrees of success with various styles in various circumstances, and yet often the value of principles over expediency is that they stand the test of time as reliable heuristics.

The interpersonal domain

The interpersonal domain of one of the domains used in instructional design. The other three are cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains.

It seems that because leadership is interpersonal that this domain applies well.

Seeking or giving information	Asking for or giving explanations, facts, or other supplemental information from or to other individuals
Proposing	To formally put forward an idea
Building and Supporting	To further a project as a member of a team; to provide positive feedback; to assist another person toward accomplishing a collective goal
Shutting out or Bringing in	Excluding or involving members of a group or team in the exchange of ideas both verbal and written
Disagreeing	Having a contradictory opinion
Summarizing	To provide an abbreviated version of the original content

I just learned where the Woodbadge leadership principles came from

My Dad got his woodbadge award as a Scouting leader. As an adult I was flipping through his old materials and found the leadership principles taught at woodbadge.

I thought they were great.

* Getting and Giving Information
* Understanding Group Needs and Characteristics
* Knowing and Understanding Group Resources
* Controlling the Group
* Counseling
* Setting the Example
* Representing the Group
* Planning
* Evaluation
* Sharing Leadership
* Manager of Learning

Then this week I discovered that the BSA adopted them from www.whitestag.org. I was going through the white stag site and thought they had borrowed from the BSA. But on reading their history page

Natural Consequences Versus Coaching and Correcting

The scouts are preparing for a 50-mile hike. We went on a practice hike this week with them. The scoutmaster has gotten caught up in the economic downturn and can't spend as much time as he otherwise would. So the adults that can take the week off to go on this 50-mile hike went with the kids on this practice hike. They seem to lean more to natural consequences rather than coaching and correcting. Don't get me wrong, they will inspect the kids gear a few days before the trip, they will bring backup first aid gear, etc. They just see this as an opportunity for these young men to learn.

Although this may scare some in our litigious society, consider that native American tribes often sent boys this age into the woods for their rites of passage or test of manhood. Ages 12-17 are good ages for high adventure.

The troop I was in as a scout had 40 boys and 5 assistant scout masters. That troop gave out packing lists, then had a back pack inspection to be sure each person had all they needed. Then we went. That troop erred on the side of too much coaching and correcting, perhaps, but we still had one boy forget the food he was supposed to bring and another forget the cooking utensils he was supposed to bring. I don't remember being too worried about any of the logistics until we all discovered the utensils missing. Then we carved some sticks and used those instead. It was more about the adventure of it all, as I recall. One kid fell into a stream and got his clothing soaked. A fire dried his stuff out with only a few hours delay.

This troop has about 12 scouts going on the trip with two adult leaders on the hike and 2 more meeting them at two places on the route. They tend more towards natural consequences than my boyhood troop did.

So as the boys, as typical boys, seem to not pay attention to the packing list during the practice hike the consequences were minor because it was in town. One boy had a pack that was half his body weight. Another had hardly anything in it. No worries, because they were home in a few hours that night.  However, when they leave on the 50-miler, they will drive multiple hours away and be gone for a week.

So is it better to let them learn by natural consequences should they forget things? Well, there seems to be some degree of learning by natural consequences no matter how much you try to help prepare them. The scout motto, Be Prepared, is sometimes thought through more than other times. Also part of scouting is to learn some of these things by your own experience. My own experiences in Scouting taught me much by mistakes, both in stuff to take and in leadership gaffes. We can then apply those lessons for the remainder of our lives.

So I think the boundary to allowing natural consequence is the boy's safety. They seem safe so far. They are buying the food today and will split it up Wed night at the scout meeting. It is mostly dry and dehydrated foods for such a long hike. They have been told repeatedly to not bring just cotton socks, but some of them may learn by the blisters they get about that choice. The leaders will have a first aid kit with moleskin inside to aid those painful blisters. Some blisters are inevitable on a hike this long anyway. It is a great personal learning opportunity for each young man. They get to develop their own experiences and live with the consequences of their own choices.

They will be at 6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation, so cold could be a problem, but it is July. It only drops down to 34 degrees F (1 deg C) at night where they are going.  This morning, in early July it was 44 degrees F (6 deg C) and we live about 40 minutes drive from the mountains.

Some of what we learn best in life is by the mistakes we make. For me it was easier to take the consequence to an action than to hear a well-intentioned adult tell me "I told you so." I think learning by mistakes is the purpose of the U.S. Army's National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California too. They want the mistakes to be made in a "safe" environment so lessons are learned without injury of loss of life and less mistakes are made in real operations. So for these boys, there are safety backups with the adults, but the prevailing philosophy in Scouting's guided learning is to let the boys lead and coach as needed. Natural consequences are excellent teachers and not soon forgotten.

So when tempted to over-correct and to "ensure a perfect trip" consider how that approach could lead to less engagement and less opportunity for people to learn for themselves. If there is significant danger, then a firmer approach may be warranted. Give the benefit of the doubt to letting the natural consequences do the teaching where possible. Quietly have backup, first aid, or other reserve resources as necessary or prudent. This generation needs to learn some of these lessons too. We adults developed our own heuristics or rules of thumb for succeeding at various endeavors. Our job as leaders is not to ensure they get the activity 100% correct, but rather to set up opportunities for learning and discussion of those lessons (reflection). When they learn for themselves, they build a portfolio of experiences that allows them to get to the next level of success at their next, more challenging endeavor. Allowing natural consequences gives them space to make significant choices and live with the impact.