Welcome!
Let’s begin with an oblique entry:
[FYI: there are three directions used in discussion of
LeaderLEVEL™: horizontal, vertical, and oblique; each
representing a directional vector in development.]
Teaching for Understanding
Subsumed within Willis and Willis’s (1996) criticism of PPP [Present-Practice-Produce]
is Perkins (1993) theory of Teaching for Understanding
(TFU). This similarly focuses on learner development and
learner needs, in making the critical distinction between
learning and understanding.
According to Perkins (1993), learning refers to a
level of study where students are prepared to recall or recite
what they have memorized for a test or a test-like situation.
Perkins argues that learning at this level is mostly
meaningless in the real world.
On the other hand, understanding is the level of
study where a learner is able to manipulate their acquired
knowledge and practically apply it when necessary.
Demonstrations of such manipulation of knowledge are
termed Performance(s) of Understanding (POU).
Under this conception of classroom practices, ongoing
assessment of POU’s (both teacher-student and student-student)
can and should replace traditional tests that only focus on
shallow learning, and are not part of a plan for
ongoing assessment.
In contrast, the usual practice of PPP includes assessments
only through mini-tests or end-of-course examinations that
focus solely on how well the learners have memorized the
course content presented. As will be argued below, it is
necessary for the learners to manipulate the language in
situations of authentic or semi-authentic communicative use,
for assessment methods to be adapted to measuring
understanding as defined by Perkins (1993) theory.
[Please note there is a direct, although seemingly indirect
correlation to learning and understanding, and being able to
speak a language–complete with lexicon and lexemes–which is
in or at a different level. People think that anyone can learn
a language given the right learning, but truly understanding
is another question entirely and the premise of why we need a
different way to assess how leaders understand, versus learn
(while important) is key to the direct correlation of the
understanding of the context for LeaderLEVEL™]
Why LeaderLEVEL™?
[LeaderLEVEL™ is part of a Meta-systematic Approach to
Dimensional Leadership Development being formalized in 2013,
by Mike R. Jay, at Leadership University @F-L-O-W.
LeaderLEVEL™ is combined with LeaderCAPABLE™, LeaderBIAS™,
LeaderSTYLE™, and LeaderROLE™, up until now form the structure
for the LeaderSYSTEM™ emerging for 21st Century Leaders from
Leadership University.]
Aside from the multiple reasons for LeaderLEVEL™, the most
glaring is the understanding of how to scaffold leaders for
optimal performance, which can only be done if we understand
how the leader will reason in multiple domains, and across
domains–scaffolding needs are "drastically" different for
each level and role.
The chart, taken from a good example of a meta-systematic
discussion of EFL Training, is key for starting to begin
to understand the dynamics at play regarding LeaderLEVEL™,
which like the above excerpt helps us understand some basics
about emerging leadership dilemmas in a complex world.
The Top 10 issues for leader support and scaffolding
challenges:
1) Complexity is the provocateur at the root of all problems.
2) Leaders without support function at a lower than desirable
level.
3) Understanding the level to begin with is key to begin to
scaffold/design/resource the level of support!
4) Noting an array of factors such as capability, bias, style,
level and role all go into the equation of job fitness for
leaders.
5) Unraveling leadership success reveals that leaders are in
over their heads and when failing to understand, create more
problems than they solve.
6) The lack of clarity in noting the variety of differences in
leaders–including to a much larger extent than we previously
imagined–reasoning level leads people who hire, train,
develop and mentor leaders at a clear disadvantage.
7) As complexity accelerates in a non-linear fashion,
conventional leadership for strategic leadership will be as
much a disaster as an outright gamble for the future of
organizational well-being and results; and thus increasingly
fraught with disappointments, usually blamed on leaders and
not the system which recruits, hires, trains, develops, and
promotes them.
8) Finding key levers in differentiating the ability of
leaders to match up to requirements may result in the
increased use of the way in which we assess, and coach how
leaders reason.
9) This is new ground and difficult, filled with illusions an
delusions about how we develop leaders, and thus requires high
degrees of skepticism, caution, and responsibility.
10) The challenge for the future will be to identify, attract,
retain and develop leaders and leadership to solve
increasingly complex problems which have multiple solutions
and significant social trade-offs.
What is LeaderLEVEL™?
This program is an attempt to formalize a system which I have
been discovering, using, and developing for more than a
decade, to provide guidance for design of how we assess leader
reasoning, potential, and fit for leadership situations.
In this first R&D Phase, I am bringing into the light a
variety of my thoughts, through which codification is emerging
in how we have to approach the assessment of leadership; both
the leaders and the systems involved and intertwined, which
articulate how leaders reason hierarchically; and develop
skill in solving problems, which can be assessed through the
process of hierarchical complexity. This doesn’t replace
either horizontal or oblique complexity, rather, it adds an
important element, which has been missing in conventional
leadership assessment.
It goes without saying that the work of leadership is also
critical to the design process, and we will cover this gambit
in a program to follow called LeaderROLE™.
In a side note that has to be mentioned in the context of
LeaderLEVEL™ is LeaderSYSTEM™, which is a paradigm that has to
be constructed as a generic process to guide leadership
formation and emergence over time.
We can’t forget about either the pieces, or the context for
LeaderLEVEL™, as they are all critical to relate and
understand, not just learn.
Finally in our Introduction of LeaderLEVEL™ context:
For now, I am going to focus on discussing the larger system
of hierarchical skill theory (combinatorial approach for
hierarchical complexity and it’s roots, coupled with skill
theory and it’s divergence).
In the following four sessions, I will attempt to articulate
with more clarity the following:
1) What are the levels that leaders can be assessed to reason
about.
2) Where did the assessment model come from and what are the
elements that are actually measured.
3) How have I morphed these components together to create
practical advice and application.
4) How LeaderLEVEL™ becomes a part of the leadership
"understanding".
Please join me in this journey and the subsequent discovery of
21st Century Leadership.
You may register for this program beginning now and until June
14, 2013, for a fee of $197, and $297 afterwards. The class
schedule is:
Tuesday, June 11 – session 1
Wednesday, June 12 – session 2
Monday, June 24 – session 3
Tuesday, June 25 – session 4
Special BONUS class on Wednesday, June 26
titled “Applying levels of LeaderLEVEL”.
NOTE: All classes will be recorded for you
incase you want to re-listen or if you miss a class.
To get this program and 9 other programs for a "certificate"
price, see our 2013
offer here.
|
