The Expedient Choice

Often, professionals will satisfice in an effort to protect time. As a principal, I was sometimes surprised to find that when I thought I had consensus, I would learn later that participants had rushed to a “good-enough” solution.

When consensus eventually broke down, participants would explain that they had chosen the first satisfactory option because they were tired of talking about it. The decision satisfied their need for expediency, but it wasn’t sufficient for building consensus. This example meets the classic definition of satisficing, in which participants chose a quick fix that is expedient, but later erodes the decision.

Just Tell Me What To Do

In just about every change initiative, there are always a few who, usually in exasperation, say, “Just tell me what to do.”

Having someone tell us what to do is an easy option and can appear satisfactory, but the complex decisions of excellent teaching and learning are never so simply applied. Lasting change requires deep reflection on practice; shortcuts are doomed to failure.

When a professional does not fully commit to thinking through the change, he will not have sufficient strategies for success. In systems theory, this is called “fixes that fail” in that the solution seems to satisfice, but over the long haul it is eroded by unintended consequences. In an attempt to satisfy the need for compliance, the teacher will find that, in the end, she does not have sufficient depth to adapt to students’ needs.

A Respectful Void

A few years ago, I taught a group of principals about theory-based leadership. No matter what I did, I could not get deep engagement from these principals. They were polite, stayed for the entire day, but something did not work.

At the end, I asked one principal for feedback. She told me, “Don’t feel bad. We treat all consultants the same way. Every time our boss goes to a conference, she brings her latest new idea. We are just sick of it.”

Being professionals, these educators did not want to appear rude, so they placated by giving sufficient attention to be polite, but not satisfying the requirements for deep learning. To be honest, most of us will admit to politely, or even not so politely, just sitting passively through workshops, giving sufficient but not satisfactory attention for learning.

For some of us, we do not want the added distraction of one more initiative. For others, it might feel like a distraction from an already chosen decision path.

Revolving Door Learning

Serial change initiatives create a sense of “false clarity” — the idea that one or two workshops make an expert. So often we hear things like, “We did professional learning communities three years ago, writing prompts last year, and now we are on to Common Core.”

With so many competing demands, it is easy to fall into the trap of revolving door professional learning. The irony is that we ignore the research on professional development that has demonstrated the need for sustained commitment, coaching, and collaborative learning.

By colluding, we adopt a sense of false clarity about the power of professional learning. Short-term gains, while satisfactory for the moment, are never sufficient for long-term change. What appears satisfactory, counting staff development events for a report, is not sufficient for producing intended outcomes.