Analytic Processes for School Leaders

146 Pages·2001·0.77 MB·English

by  Cynthia T. Richetti

a
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
C T. R
YNTHIA ICHETTI
AND
B B. T
ENJAMIN REGOE
CYNTHIA T. RICHETTI AND BENJAMIN B. TREGOE
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Alexandria, Virginia USA
®
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
1703 N. Beauregard St. • Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 USA
Telephone: [phone] or 703-578-9600 • Fax: [phone]
Web site: http://www.ascd.org • E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright © 2001 by Kepner-Tregoe, Inc., and Tregoe Education Forum, Inc. All rights reserved. The
material contained in this publication has been adapted, in part, from certain copyrighted works of
Kepner-Tregoe, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, and is used with the permission of Kepner-Tregoe, Inc.
Certain figures contained herein have been reprinted with the permission of Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. No
part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage-and-retrieval system, without
permission from the copyright holders.
ASCD publications present a variety of viewpoints. The views expressed or implied in this book
should not be interpreted as official positions of the Association.
netLibrary E-Book: ISBN 0-87120-728-1 Price: $22.95
Quality Paperback: ISBN 0-87120-516-5 ASCD product no. 101017
ASCD member price: $18.95 nonmember price: $22.95
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
(for paperback book)
Richetti, Cynthia T.
Analytic processes for school leaders / Cynthia T. Richetti and Benjamin B. Tregoe.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-87120-516-5 (alk. paper)
1. School management and organization—Decision making. 2. Thought and thinking.
I. Tregoe, Benjamin B. II. Title.
LB2806 R5554 2001
371.2—dc21 2001003270
A n a ly t i c P r o c e s s e s f o r S c h o o l L e a d e r s
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................vi
INTRODUCTION............................................................1
1
RATIONAL THINKING AS A PROCESS
........................................................................................7
2
THINKING ABOUT QUESTIONS
......................................................................................19
3 DECISION ANALYSIS:
WHAT’S OUR BEST CHOICE?
......................................................................................28
POTENTIAL PROBLEM ANALYSIS:
4
WHAT COULD GO WRONG?
GUARDING AGAINST FUTURE TROUBLE
......................................................................................52
PROBLEM ANALYSIS:
5 WHY DID THIS HAPPEN?
SOLVING PROBLEMS BY
FINDING TRUE CAUSE
......................................................................................68
SITUATION APPRAISAL:
6
WHAT’S GOING ON?
SORTING OUT COMPLEXITY
......................................................................................92
7
GETTING STARTED
....................................................................................110
APPENDIXES
A. CONTRIBUTING EDUCATORS
....................................................................................126
B. COMPASSQUEST:
MIDDLE SCHOOL/CORPORATE PROJECT
.....................................................................................128
BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................130
REFERENCES.............................................................131
INDEX.........................................................................133
ABOUT THE AUTHORS............................................136
List of Figures
1.1 The Input-Process-Output Relationship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2 The Rational-Thinking Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 Four Types of Situations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4 Types of Situations and Corresponding Analytic Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1 Comparison of Process and Content Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1 Evaluating Alternatives in the College Decision Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2 Decision Analysis Steps: Basic and Refinements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3 Scoring Alternatives in the College Decision Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.4 Weighing Objectives in the Scheduling Decision Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.5 1st Graders Evaluate Potential Pets for Franklin the Turtle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.1 Structure of a Potential Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.2 Applying Potential Problem Analysis in the Closed-Campus Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.3 Using Potential Opportunity Analysis to Maximize Training Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.4 Using Potential Problem Analysis to Plan for a Difficult Meeting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.5 Using Potential Problem Analysis to Plan Thawing a Woolly Mammoth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.6 Addressing the Potential Problem of Fires and Explosions from Earthquakes. . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.1 Structure of a Problem and Possible Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.2 Is and Is Not Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.3 Is and Is Not Questions Applied to the Math Lab Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.4 Narrowing Possible Causes in the Math Lab Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5.5 Problem Analysis Steps: Basic and Refinements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.6 Distinctions and Changes in the Math Lab Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5.7 Problem Specification in the LEAP Scores Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
iv
List of Figures
5.8 Narrowing Possible Causes in the LEAP Scores Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.9 Problem Specification in the Disciplinary Referrals Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.10 Is and Is Not Questions in the Pedestrian Safety Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.11 Problem Specification in the Student Arrests Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.1 Situation Appraisal in the School Violence Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6.2 Assessing Priorities in the School Violence Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.3 Situation Appraisal in the School Bus Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.4 Flexible Use of Situation Appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
6.5 Situation Appraisal in the Substance Abuse Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7.1 How the Analytic Processes Interconnect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
7.2 Three Ways to Use an Analytic Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
7.3 Athletic Director’s “Plan for Process Use” in the Budget Cut Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7.4 Assistant Superintendent’s Plan for Improvement in the Effective Meetings Example . . . . 120
7.5 Identifying Where in the Curriculum an Analytic Process Might Apply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
7.6 Health Teacher’s Lesson Plan in the Eating Disorders Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
v
Acknowledgments
T We are also indebted to our colleagues at
his book is possible only because of the
the Tregoe Education Forum, whose insights
teachers, administrators, and students
and suggestions have been invaluable—Bob
of the schools and school districts with
Brock, Rick Fonte, Shari Johnson, Cass Love,
whom we have been fortunate enough to work.
Jim Sheerin, Amy Stempel, and especially, Bob
We are most grateful to them. (See Appendix A
Klempen and Mike Roche, with whom we have
for a listing.)
had the opportunity to work for the past eight
We are also indebted to Kepner-Tregoe,
years. And we would not be able to pursue our
Inc., for their support and to those Kepner-
goals without those who have contributed fi-
Tregoe clients who made available an important
nancially and in other ways. We are grateful for
member of their staff to work with a leadership
their support.
team from a local middle school as part of the
Finally, we thank our editors, John O’Neil
CompassQuest consortium, cosponsored by the
and Margaret Oosterman, for their many helpful
Association for Supervision and Curriculum
suggestions, and Linda LePage and Carol Morello
Development and the Tregoe Education Forum.
of Kepner-Tregoe, for their painstaking prepara-
(This project is described in Appendix B.) ASCD
tion of the manuscript.
has been supportive of the work we are doing,
and we are most appreciative.
vi
Introduction
T
his book is about technology—but not rate of change is simultaneously breathtaking
the kind of technology you might ex- and daunting. Yet human ingenuity and thinking
pect. Billions of dollars are currently are still at the heart of all this advancement.
spent to educate, upgrade, introduce, and famil- Why do we seem to take for granted our
iarize students and educators with the technol- ability to think? Why do we neglect to enhance
ogy of our day. Usually, such efforts mean high the natural thinking and reasoning capabilities
technology, or computer-related information. that are bestowed upon us? It seems almost as if
Surely, this type of education is important, given we look to technology as a replacement for the
the present and future state of the world. need to think. Michael Bloomberg, founder of
We cannot help, however, but be struck by a multimedia conglomerate that relies heavily
the fact that the same enthusiasm and invest- on delivering information through technology,
ment do not exist for helping people enhance asked recently, “Are we using technology as an
the natural technology with which they are born. excuse not to teach how to think and work with
We are witnessing incredible advancements others? . . . Some think computer expertise is
within a lifetime (e.g., putting a man on the required for future success. I don’t. Thinking
moon and mapping the human genome). The and interpersonal communications skills have
1
A n a l y t i c P r o c e s s e s f o r S c h o o l L e a d e r s
been, are, and will be keys to survival” (Bloom- A Better Process
berg, 1997, pp. 153, 190). for Decision Making
As humans, we have the ability to reason
through problems, challenges, and issues. We In the late 1950s, Benjamin Tregoe and Charles
are not driven solely by instinct to react a cer- Kepner, two research scientists working for the
tain way. We are capable of examination, reflec- RAND Corporation, were conducting research
tion, and analysis—in short, thinking. And yet with radar station crews for the Air Defense
we often seem to treat thinking as if it were in- Command. They began to notice that certain air
stinctive. Indeed, the capacity to think may be force officers in their study consistently made
innate, but the ability to think well is an ac- better decisions than others, even though all
quired skill. Rational thinking is the ability to these officers had essentially the same training
accurately assess the various elements of a situ- and experience and were presented with the
ation or challenge and use information effec- same simulated air threats. Because the infor-
tively to form a sound conclusion. mation the officers dealt with was the same, the
When faced with problems, we typically difference in effectiveness had to lie in the pro-
need to respond or take some type of action. For cess the decision makers used. Tregoe and Kep-
many, taking action is not difficult. But how ner theorized that the better decision makers
often is this action effective? How often do we followed a better process—that the process
look at decisions that others have made and comprised a series of steps they followed to
wonder, “What were they thinking?” What we make their decisions and that the better deci-
need is not a greater proclivity for action, but sion makers were more aware of their decision-
rather a greater incidence of rational action. Ra- making process.
tional action is characterized by its appropriate- After they left RAND, Kepner and Tregoe
ness to meeting the needs of the situation, its ef- continued their study of decision making. In
fectiveness in resolving whatever was at issue, 1958, they founded Kepner-Tregoe, Inc., now
its ability to be used, and its support from key an international management consulting firm
stakeholders. based in Princeton, New Jersey. Further research
Rational action requires rational thinking. showed that better decision makers did indeed
Rational thinking doesn’t happen by accident. follow a better and more consistent process.
How does one learn to develop effective solu- Better decision makers were as unaware of their
tions and take meaningful action to address own process, however, as were the poor deci-
life’s challenges? If you’re like most of us, you sion makers. Kepner and Tregoe conducted ex-
learned through experience, trial and error, and tensive research and ultimately identified and
osmosis. Even if you consider yourself an ef- codified four analytic processes: decision analy-
fective problem solver, how much more effec- sis, potential problem analysis, problem analy-
tive might you be with some fine-tuning? How sis, and situation appraisal.
can you help others improve their abilities in In the last 40 years, more than 20 million
this area? people have been trained in the Kepner-Tregoe®
2
Introduction
problem-solving and decision-making pro- • Greater understanding of curriculum ma-
cesses. Today these processes are widely used, terial.
from the board room to the plant floor, in more • Improved ability to work in groups.
than 1,400 of the world’s most influential or-
For teachers
ganizations, including Johnson & Johnson,
• Increased student motivation and atten-
Honda, IBM, NASA, Sony, and the World Bank.
tion to lessons.
These decision-making strategies have been
• More effective use of longer class periods.
used in 44 countries and taught in 14 lan-
• A proven way to integrate higher-order
guages. The range of organizations and cultures,
thinking skills into existing curriculum.
and the variety of issues to which these ideas
have been applied, attest to their universality
For administrators
and broad applicability.
• More effective resolution of critical school
issues.
• Shared approach for handling complex
Bringing Critical-Thinking Skills
issues and divergent opinions.
to Education
Purpose of the Book
In 1993, Tregoe founded the nonprofit Tregoe
Education Forum to bring these same critical-
The purpose of this book is to show educators
thinking skills to elementary, middle, and high
how to apply the four rational-thinking ap-
school students. The Tregoe Education Forum,
proaches in an educational environment. It doesn’t
under a license from Kepner-Tregoe, Inc., pro-
matter whether we are a 5th grade student, a su-
vides workshops and resource materials for
perintendent of a major school district, or a spe-
teachers and administrators and enables them to
cial education teacher; if we need to make a de-
provide K–12 students with the critical-thinking
cision, the basic tenets of effective decision
tools students need for personal development
making remain consistent. It is only the content
and success. The analytic processes have had a
of the decision that changes. Once we know the
demonstrated effect, as reported by administra-
basic steps for effective issue resolution, we can
tors and teachers, on elementary, middle, and
apply those steps to almost any situation we face.
high schools and their students in some 25
This book describes four step-by step ap-
school districts across the country. Here are some
proaches, or processes, for handling four com-
reported benefits:
mon types of situations:
For students • When we need to make a choice.
• Better questioning techniques to gather, • When we need to implement a change.
organize, and evaluate information. • When something goes wrong.
• Increased ability to resolve real-life prob- • When we need to better understand a
lems. complex issue.
3