PRACTICE
Beyond Blame:
A Lead Management Approach
William Glasser and Robert Wubbolding
Power struggles between teachers and students may have no clear instigator.
Rather than assigning blame when difficulties arise in the classroom, teachers
can use an alternative “lead management” approach, based on William Glasser’s
choice theory. Strategies for implementing lead management are provided.
Lee’s Story:
I’ve been teaching seventh grade for the past 16 years, and I
consider myself a good teacher. I’ve always enjoyed getting to know my
students by going to extracurricular events, taking them on trips, and being
an informal counselor when a student needed advice. Over the years, I’ve
acquired a reputation for being a fair, consistent, somewhat stern
disciplinarian. I’m in charge of my classroom, and the students have always
known where they stood with me. If they followed my rules, they wouldn’t get
in trouble. During trips, I let myself shift mental gears and be a little more
friendly.
But in recent years, things have changed. First of all, the local
administration, school board, and even the state department of education have
become more demanding. I have more paperwork and must spend more preparation
time than ever before. To make matters worse, the students’ behavior is more
disruptive, and they don’t appreciate me like they used to. Lately, I’ve seen
more tardiness, sloppy work, missed assignments, apathy, and disrespectful
remarks. They refuse to listen and they are more verbally rebellious and
challenging. Beyond that, they are impulsive, angry, and resentful toward
authority. I feel burned out. I don’t want to spend time with these kids – it’s
enough to try to deal with their disruptive behavior in the classroom! All I
want to try to do anymore is get through the subject matter. I’ve had enough.
I’m ready to toughen up on the rules. In fact, the whole school needs to beef
up enforcement of the rules.
Last Monday was a good example. One of my students, Randy, who’d been
giving me trouble constantly, came storming into class – several minutes after
the bell had rung. He slammed his books on the desk, noisily sat down, and
grimaced at me! I told him that his behavior was not acceptable, and I sent
him to the principal’s office. How can 1 be expected to teach with this kind
of constant disruption?
Randy’s Story:
I’m a seventh grader and this is my first year at this
school. I still haven’t gotten used to all the rules they have around
here – there are so many of them, and half of them are just stupid. I’m never
going to get friends by being a goody-goody, and I’m not going to follow rules
that a bunch of control freaks made up just to keep me from doing what I want.
Mr. Smith’s class is the worst. He is way too uptight. If you break a rule in
Mr. Smith’s class, he goes ballistic.
Like one time last week, I was just a few minutes late for his class
because I missed my bus and had to walk all the way to school. Well, I came in and set my books down on the desk, and he gives me
this dirty look! So 1 give it back to him. And he goes off, yelling at me,
getting all red in the face: “I’ve had it with you! You can’t come stomping in
here like you own the place. Take your books and leave. Go to the assistant
principal’s office! I can’t teach when you act like this:”
Who’s to Blame?
So who is to blame for this power struggle? These fictional characters and
their attitudes described above are probably familiar to most professionals
who work with young people. Depending on one’s experience and perspective,
there are two clear ways to view this interaction:
-
Randy disrupted the class, which is not permissible in a learning
environment. He was inconsiderate at best and disrespectful at worst, and he
openly defied the rules. The school needs to find swift and severe
consequences for this kind of insupportable behavior, especially in light of
the trend toward increasing antisocial behavior among young people. Could it
be that the amount of pathology and maladjustment among young people is
increasing`? If so, the situation will surely get worse if behavior like
Randy’s is left unchecked.
-
Lee lost his temper, shouted at Randy, and treated him in a demeaning
manner. He should be blamed for provoking the student, and making him even
more resentful. In this kind of conflict cycle, Randy is obligated to take
further action to “get even:” After all, he has been humiliated in front of
his peers. Or perhaps he even enjoys the attention. Either way, the principal
should reprimand Lee, and in fact all teachers who persist in an authoritarian
discipline approach to the students of the ’90s.
While both of these perspectives are based on some valid points, there is a
third way to view this interaction, which is intended to be symbolic of both
student misbehavior of varying severity and of more widespread school
difficulties. The real problem lies not in the behavior of either individual,
but in the system of communication and management that characterizes the
interactions between students and teachers as well as how the building itself
is managed. Neither the student nor the teacher is to blame in this situation.
They both chose behaviors that seemed justified and appropriate to the
situation from their perspectives. However, both responses were totally
ineffective. What Lee and Randy need is a replacement for outdated
authoritarian approaches to classroom management.
Lead Management
Lead management is a term is used by William Glasser (1990, 1991, 1996) to
describe a democratic style of management and its accompanying communication
technique. The lead manager is the opposite of the boss manager, whose motto
is, “It’s my way or the highway:” Among the many differences in management
styles between boss and lead managers is that the lead manager seeks to involve students and faculty in
decision making and appeals to people’s intrinsic motivation rather than
relying on external stimuli of rewards and punishments to keep control.
This system of management is based on choice theory (Glasser, 1996). Human
beings have five sources of motivation which are internal and not derived from
external stimuli. These needs are:
-
Survival (physical needs)
-
Belonging
-
Power or Achievement
-
Freedom
-
Fun
When these needs are fulfilled at school, students behave better, learn
more, and see education as valuable and important to them.
Three Principles of Lead Management
Teachers can utilize a lead management style and create a classroom
environment that is fun, friendly, and fair by beginning with the following
three principles:
-
Elicit students’ input. Class or group meetings are an excellent way to
get students’ input on a wide variety of subjects relevant to a classroom or
organization. Seat the students in a circle and ask them about what quality
work is and how they would recognize it. Ask them about quality behavior. What
is their best effort? What rules should be established for the classroom? Post
these rules on flip chart paper and ask all students to sign the paper
indicating their agreement. Conduct other meetings on a variety of topics interesting to the students
and relevant to the curriculum (Glasser, 1990, 1991). Ask them how they think
they can best learn the content of the class. Even if teachers cannot
implement all the ideas, they usually discover that students have excellent
suggestions. Moreover, when students are asked to evaluate their suggestions,
they learn valuable lessons about recognizing that they cannot get everything
they want at all times. Most important, they feel that the teacher listens to
them. Eliciting student input helps meet students’ needs for power and
freedom.
-
Learn and use the WDEP system of Reality Therapy
(Glasser, 1965;
Wubbolding, 1988, 1991, 1996). When problem solving with students, ask them
what they Want from the class, from the school, from themselves, and from the
teacher. Ask them how hard they Want to work to get what they want. Ask them
about what they are Doing, especially when they misbehave. Avoid asking
“why?”
as it will only elicit excuses. Lessen the number of lectures about what
students ought to be doing and substitute questions that touch the inner needs and wants of the students. Most important, teachers need to ask students to
Evaluate their behavior,
their effort, and their school work. Is what they are doing helping or hurting
themselves, the class, etc.? Is what they are doing against the rules which
they have agreed to keep? And then, can they make a Plan of action – a simple,
doable plan to do better. Recognize that this is a skill that students need to
learn. Good planning will not happen with the first question.
-
Focus on meeting needs rather than controlling behavior:
Abandon
questions about how to control students’ behavior and ask the more fundamental
questions about how to help students and faculty tap into the five basic human
motivators. When these needs are met, school experiences “feel good:” At
faculty meetings, discuss possibilities for meeting these needs. Relate the
eagerness students feel for athletics, drama, art, or other absorbing
activities to the academic curriculum. Why are they excited to learn and work
hard in some areas but not in others? These and other questions have no simple
answers. But there are answers, and with commitment, they can be applied to
other areas, academic and otherwise.
The Replay
What if Lee and Randy were able to replay the scene and try a different
approach? Using the three principles of lead management described
above – eliciting Randy’s input, using the WDEP system, and focusing on Randy’s
basic needs – Lee would probably have been able to maneuver toward a more
peaceful outcome:
In the classroom:
L: Randy, I can see you’re upset. Let’s step out in the hall and talk for a
moment.
R: Whatever. Out in hall:
L: Something must have happened that got to you.
R: Yeah, right. I missed my bus and I ran all the way here, and this is the
thanks I get!
L: That must have been really frustrating. I’d like to talk with you more
about it after class, but I need to get the lesson started now. Do you want to
stay here until you feel better or do you want to come into class?
R: I don’t know.
L: Which would help you more? R: I guess I can go into class now. After
class:
L: I wanted to talk a minute about what happened when you came in late to
class. What did you do to handle the situation?
R: Hey, you’re lucky I got here at all. I told you I missed the bus, and I
ran all the way over here!
L: I appreciate your effort to get here. I need to ask you though, did the
way you entered the class help the other students learn and help me teach?
R: Well ...I guess it hurt.
L: What would be another way you could handle things if this situation
comes up again?
R: I don’t know. I guess I could come in the back door and try to be more
quiet.
An alternative short-term resolution might occur in the class. After Randy
enters the room as described earlier, Lee could simply have said, “Randy,
that’s one way to come in. That was a practice run. Could you go out and come
in again, this time for real’?”
Both of these approaches help Randy to evaluate his own behavior instead of
merely trying to control him externally. If Lee wants to have the kind of
student behavior in the classroom as well as high-quality work so appreciated
by teachers, he will continue such interactions that use this lead management
style based on internal controls.
A Daily Tool
Lead management comprises both immediately useful techniques and long-range
thinking and discussion. A teacher who adopts the questioning skills,
summarized by the WDEP acronym, has a useful tool which can be used every day.
But if the school overall is to meet the needs of students, faculty, and
administration, the philosophy of quality and lead management and the
rationale behind these ideas should be practiced as well.
References
Glasser, W. (1965). Reality therapy. New York: Harper-Collins.
Glasser, W.
(1990). The quality school. New York: Harper-Collins.
Glasser, W. (1991). The
quality school teachers. New York: Harper-Collins.
Glasser, W. (1996). Choice
theory. New York: Harper-Collins.
Wubbolding, R. (1988). Using reality therapy.
New York: Harper-Collins.
Wubbolding, R. (1991). Understanding reality therapy.
New York: Harper-Collins.
Wubbolding, R. (1996). Reality therapy training (9th
ed.). Cincinnati: Center for Reality Therapy.
This feature: Glasser, W.
and Wubbolding, R. (1997) Beyond Blame: A Lead Management Approach.
Reaching Today’s Youth Vol. 1 (4). pp. 40 – 42
______