Having spent a good part of this week reflecting on the
insight, suggestions, and collective wisdom shared at our first Conversation Café for the master’s degree we are developing in leadership and organization development, and executive coaching, here are some ideas and inspirations that
stand out for me.
Most academic degree programs are focused on knowledge. If
there is a critical or constructivist bent about them, they include a strong
acknowledgement of ways of knowing. If the degree is professionally oriented,
as opposed to more purely academically focused, it will additionally have a
strong emphasis on practice, or ways of doing. What we heard strongly from our
participants – consistent with my own thinking – is that this new program must
also encourage individual transformation—realization of each participant’s
human potential, holding an inherent optimism in the value of that potential,
and being true to the notion that individual change is intimately connected and
implicated in the larger project of social change. This adds one more “ways”
dimension to knowing and doing, namely an equal emphasis on ways of being in
the world, and particularly, ways of being in relation in the world.
We can consolidate these ideas as Savoir3: Savoir,
Savoir Faire, and Savoir Être, or Knowing, Acting, and Being.
These three, to be integrated by design into all aspects of the degree program,
represent the dual ethos of praxis and transformation that
informs not only our program and pedagogy, but the intended experiences that we
intent to enable among our participants. Thus, what may well become the slogan
of our eventual degree program is almost self-evident:
Transform the individual.
Transform the organization.
Transform the world.
How, then, will our students know if they are successful in
the context of such guiding principles; indeed, how will we know if our program itself
is successful? With conventional academic degrees, the answer is fairly
obvious: students are graded for assignments and summative assessments
according to some appropriate rubric, they accumulate a certain number of
course credits that are required to complete degree requirements, and the
school itself processes… rather, graduates a continual flow of completed
candidates.
However, if the objective of both the program and (presumably)
the students themselves is transformation, how can that be assessed in a
more-or-less rigorous, but non-positivist, fashion? (There is another post
begging to be written on how the notion of objectivity – externally constructed
measures of truth that impose themselves as structure – renders a degree
program inorganic; in other words, dead—but that's for another day.) Several Conversation Café
participants coalesced around the idea of defining success in terms of the
participants’ individually held understanding of “where and how do I want to
grow?” and “what needs of mine am I trying to fill?” This is a useful starting
point, as it suggests appropriately facilitated processes of reflection and
check-in through our participants’ transition through the degree process. However, a
large part of measuring transformation must be rooted in how the individual’s
perceived needs evolve and emerge consistent with the individual’s changing
worldview. Merely satisfying preconceived needs and attaining goals projected
from one’s starting point suggest a deterministic process that is inconsistent
with the type of transformative effects that are at the heart of the program’s
ethos. In particular, the program can only consider itself successful if there
are aspects that the learner will discover as s/he navigates the program
experiences through which individual transformation begins to emerge. It is
quite likely that the successful participants will change their intended and
desired outcomes for growth, personal transformation, and perceived needs
during the course of the program. Conversely, we might say that if one’s
recognized and self-perceived needs haven’t changed by the end of the program,
the person simply hasn’t been paying attention!
How, then, do we evaluate our students? As a capstone or thesis
endeavour, they must be able to usefully demonstrate what they have contributed
in their individual and collective transformative contexts to Savoir3—Knowledge,
Action, and Reflection on Being. Success is manifest in the students
necessarily engaging in complexity thinking, creating connections in social
relation as a way of being, and having experienced transformation among the
three elements that comprise Savoir3. Part of the summative
evaluation challenge for the students will be for them to design and realize that
demonstration—how’s that for transformation in pedagogy?
In many contemporary degree programs that address leadership
and organization development, there is a strong thread – if not overarching
theme – of change. Change management, resistance to change, organizing for
change, ensuring organizational readiness for change, technologies of change—I
hate to use the very tired cliché of “and the list goes on,” but I’ve surveyed
quite a few graduate programs and the list indeed continues in this fashion!
In keeping true to the ethos that inspires and provides impetus
for this program we – without question – need to foster a change in our
own understanding and experience of change itself: from deterministic, planful,
outcome/objective/goal-biased change to an appreciation and
understanding of, and comfort with, emergent transformation, navigating
intended effects among complex human environments. This concept strongly
suggests – almost mandates – considerable care in adopting a new(er) lexicon throughout our
curriculum content and subject matter. Curriculum is only a framework for the
program. To effect the type of transformation suggested by holding true to
Savoir3, our intent in course designs will be to create powerful
experiences that will enable our students to make sense of their own contexts
and histories through both the source materials and collective experiences of
instructors, other participants, and other engaged constituencies. Out of these
powerful, sense-making experiences Savoir3 will emerge in ways that
complete the course syllabi and overall curriculum.
If you are interested in contributing to this conversation,
there are still a few places available for both our November 1 and November 7
Conversation Cafés in Toronto—please contact me for details and an invitation. And,
if you are unable to attend, I would be grateful to hear your thoughts, either in the comments or directly by email.