As Edward M. Hallowell explains in his most recent book, Shine: Using Brain Science to Get the Best from Your People, published by Harvard Business Review Press (2011), “Many people need help in getting rid of the obstacles in their way. In the workplace, this is the challenge that managers face: to help people overcome these obstacles and enter into [what Hallowell characterizes as ‘The Cycle of Excellence’]. While I have made many suggestions on how to do this, my concluding suggestion is this: do it your way. Ultimately, neither I nor anyone else can tell you what to do more skillfully than you can tell yourself.”
Hallowell does share his own thoughts about how to achieve and then sustain peak performance. He suggests a five-step process.
1. Put people into the right jobs so that their brains light up.
2. Overcome the potent forces that disconnect people in the workplace both from each other and from the mission of the organization, and restore the force of positive connection which is the most powerful fuel for peak performance.
3. Effectively use play – imaginative and improvisational collaboration – to catalyze advance work, and help people tap into this exceptionally productive but yet undervalued activity of the creative mind.
4. Create conditions in which people can “grapple and grow” because they want to work hard, making progress completing a task that is challenging but exciting as well as highly valued and appreciated.
5. Doing well – shining — feels so good. Therefore, be sure to recognize and praise anyone within the organization because “a culture that helps people shine inevitably becomes a culture of self-perpetuating excellence.”
Hallowell adds, “Each step is critical in its own right and translates into actions a manager or worker can [begin do and do now. [end]. Each step builds upon the other. [begin] The most common mistake managers make is to jump in at step 4 and ask people to work harder, without first having created the conditions that will lead workers to want to work harder [end].
“Whatever you do, your goal as a manager should be to minimize feelings of alienation and falseness within your organization, while increasing feelings of openness and honesty. You want to make sure people feel permission to be real.”
* * *
Edward M. Hallowell, MD, a psychiatrist, served as an instructor at Harvard Medical School for twenty years and is director of the Hallowell Centers in New York City and Sudbury, Massachusetts, and is the author of two Harvard Business Review articles and 18 books.
Here is an excerpt of an article that caught my eye, written by Leonard Cassuto and recently published in The Chronicle of Higher Education (March 20, 2011). With uncommon clarity, Cassuto addresses many of the issues that continue to generate divided opinions (sometimes sharply divided opinions) about the mission of graduate school education and the extent to which it now fulfills that mission.
To read the complete article, please click here.
* * *
No one should deny that graduate education is in a bad way at the moment. But apart from loosing rivers of blood and bile about this online, exactly what are we doing about it? In the next couple of columns I want to examine a few notable and very different efforts to deal with the most pressing problems before us, and consider what the reforms might mean for graduate teachers.
When I first started writing this column, I thought that I’d be offering practical suggestions for how to structure and teach graduate seminars and how to advise dissertation students. I still intend to do that, but the urgency of the concerns facing graduate programs in these straitened times—and the changes that those trends are already forcing in programs—have made clear that we can’t separate what happens in graduate classrooms from what’s happening in graduate programs around the country. And as the high unemployment rate for new Ph.D.’s illustrates, we can’t separate what’s happening in graduate programs from the troubles faced right now by universities generally.
It was with those thoughts in mind that I attended a meeting last month of the National Forum on the Future of Liberal Education, a program financed by the Teagle Foundation and directed by Peter T. Struck, a classicist at the University of Pennsylvania, and Sarah E. Igo, a historian at Vanderbilt University. As its title suggests, the forum looks forward. It’s a concerted attempt to seed the clouds with thinkers who are also doers.
The forum is sponsoring 30 fellows in fields across the liberal arts as disparate as French and brain science. A number of fellows hold appointments (or joint appointments) in education. Nearly all are junior faculty members. They will meet five times over a three-year period (two meetings remain).
Igo and Struck have worked on the principle that talented thinkers should go beyond coming up with ideas, which is the easy part for academics. They should also design and model their ideas. Indeed, “design” is the keyword here. “Instead of taking conundrums that we might chew our cud over,” said Struck, “we want to design tasks.”
That emphasis on design makes the project stand out for me. I’ve seen a lot of grant money get spent by groups of people who talk to one another and then stage a conference where they talk to one another some more. The problems facing academe today demand concrete plans for trial and testing. Accordingly, the mission of the Teagle forum is for its participants to “carry [their] conversations back to their home universities, to policy circles, and to the broader society.”
Design is the designated vehicle to turn ideas into policy. “Great design,” said Zachary First, one of the 30 fellows and managing director of the Drucker Institute at Claremont Graduate University, “is feasible (can it work?), viable (can it spread?), and desirable (do people want it?).” At one of their earlier meetings, the group members created a series of “design challenges” that now serve as collective prompts. Many of the prompts reflect continuing national conversations, such as, “Design a way to deliver a liberal education such that it is not just a luxury for the affluent.” Related to that prompt is another one that speaks directly to the anxieties roiling graduate education right now: “Modify the academic labor market such that it will better support a liberal education.”
The emphasis on practical planning makes the forum unlike any other group of its kind that I’ve seen. Struck and Igo emphasize that they are looking for inspiration from successful business models ranging from health care to religion. The goal of such case studies, says Igo, is “concrete action, to think about institutional structures.” And, she adds, “to unthink them too.”
One group prompt is to “design graduate training to produce professors who will make the organizational changes we envision.” Those changes are not yet articulated, of course, but I’d like to focus on that very lacuna as a space that we can all try to fill. It’s too early to tell what the results of the Teagle initiative will be, but the hope is evidently that these young and talented fellows will take their heightened sense of “can do” and become campus leaders who will be able to foster new ideas from the top down.
But why can’t we all start doing what the forum is doing, from the bottom up? Let’s start with the classroom. As professors, we design what goes on in our courses. It’s easy to design a graduate course around a chunk of disciplinary content: We need look no further than the graduate seminars that we took ourselves. But the new realities of graduate education in this country require new designs.
In particular, how can we design graduate courses that aren’t just for future professors and other academic researchers? We need to adjust our goals in the classroom to accommodate different kinds of students.
* * *
To read the complete article, please click here.
Author’s note: Writing a column offers the privilege of an evolving relationship with one’s readers. A number of mine have noted that certain observations I’ve made about graduate education don’t fit the sciences so well. That’s true. I want to write about the sciences along with the humanities and social sciences, including a focus on some of the specific problems encountered in scientific graduate education. But in order to do that, I’ll need some education myself. So consider this a special request to my readers in the sciences: Please send ideas, referrals, or simple advice to my e-mail address below.
Leonard Cassuto, a professor of English at Fordham University, writes regularly about graduate education in this space. He welcomes comments and suggestions from readers at firstname.lastname@example.org or at http://www.lcassuto.com/biobiblio.