Motivating others to action is the reason why many of us take on the challenging and often invigorating role of being a leader. As a teacher, I have attempted a variety of strategies to lead my students in directions that encourage growth and development. Some have yielded more fruit than others. This tension has caused me to reflect on how I motivate my students and more importantly, the reasons behind my choices.
I see two main postures that we can take as leaders when we think about encouraging behaviour change. I believe they are best understood in the statements: “This is how it could look” and conversely, “This is how it shouldn’t look”. The resulting action and direction of the people we lead is greatly affected by how we use these statements to influence our practice.
In the book “Educating the Reflective Practitioner”, Donald Schon speaks of two very different approaches to how we frame problems and change-worthy situations in our practice. An objectivist sees these moments as fixable through procedures, rules and theories. It is much easier to understand change in this box of definable “shouldn’ts” where expert behaviour is modelled only by the leader. Leadership decisions happen through the relationship between the “knowing practitioner and the reality that he knows”. This limiting perspective leaves little room for the influence of other’s views and ideas. It is a black and white approach that suggests that if you don’t do this, you will get that (desired behaviour). Such a stance spotlights negative actions and most often leads to feelings of guilt and inadequacy.
A constructionist leader will look at the challenge of behaviour change in a more reflective, dynamic way. Here there is room for reshaping and reframing ideas. “How should the desired behaviour look” instead of “how it shouldn’t” opens up the conversation for a vast amount of variation and interpretation. For every student, there is a story and for every story there are a multitude of approaches and creative ideas. The leader is seen more as a “researcher trying to model an expert system than like the expert whose behaviour is modelled” (p. 36). The leader guides, listens, anticipates and adjusts. She carries on a “reflective conversation with the materials of the situation”. Schon calls her practice, reflection-in-action.
Students who are fortunate to have a constructionist leader will often find themselves empowered and valued as contributors to the desired change. Areas of growth already in progress will be encouraged and stories of positive successes will be affirmed. In this space, there is room for both the leader and student who together invent, test, respond and rethink. Change becomes a collaborative effort. Ownership belongs to everyone.
Living in the tension of change is what the constructionist does. And within this tension comes the freedom to look outward and embrace the possibilities of the unknown. Motivating others to action becomes more of a risk than a prescribed pedagogy of do’s and don’ts. As leaders we need to invite others into this process; to affirm and acknowledge the good that is already there and work together towards changes that we may or may not have dreamed of at the start.