Ch.38 — Sorting and re-training college faculty and staff

In Chapter 38 the problem of what to do with existing faculty and administrators is faced

11 min readNov 6, 2022

The intern training was going smoothly. This made the War Room and Writers Room happy. Marketing and promoting Experiential Insight Colleges (New Colleges) to prospective pilot locations and the public was off to a good start.

The next challenge was to activate the Plan for sorting existing college faculty and existing college admin staff into who keeps their job; and, who needs an early retirement offer; or, job-search support.

For each group, the War Room identified criteria for who was likely to be successful in re-training and effective when the five pilot campuses opened, Fall of 2035.

Each group, existing faculty and admin staff, were further divided:

1) Those already on board with the paradigms shifts of New Colleges. These only needed the re-training orientation, for the new habits to practice,

2) Existing employees neutral about or skeptical of the new paradigms. These needed self-evaluation test instruments to sort for those ready, willing, able and wanting to align with New Colleges; and, those who would be happier somewhere else or retired; and finally

3) Those unlikely or unwilling to re-train into new paradigms, those needing early retirement or job placement support to continue in regular old-style, old-school college environments.

The good news was, the estimated total number of existing, paid staff at all five pilot campus was only 200. Pilot program campus locations were in-part chosen on how many faculty and staff would have to be retrained. The Plan was for the majority of faculty and staff to be new, young hires at all five campuses.

Teaching faculty going forward with retraining were scheduled into a three-month Summer Camp where they were oriented to and practiced with new teacher texts; and then, practiced composing sample lessons for peer-review.

Many faculty were willing to be re-cast as “classroom facilitators.” Many of them welcomed support to upgrade their teaching methods:

- towards student-student interaction,

- towards inTuitive Feeling; and,

- towards more heartfelt college classroom experiences.

Using, interactive, social exercise sequences for re-training, adult learners were more receptive than anticipated. This unleashed hope for a more workable, more practical, more heartfelt college experience more widely.

Fortunately, the college-age public seemed ready for a big change. They remained hungry for news of developments. Since 2008, from several progressives corners of academia, liberal arts colleges had been talked about as “ripe for creative disruption.” This time had finally come.

The following two topics were crucial for navigating these conversations:

Cultural Creatives vs. Regressives

Explaining the difference between Cultural Creatives and Regressives was often educational for multiple purposes.

CCs are more hopeful and optimistic about themselves and Earth’s future. For Regressives, the present is already overwhelming; the future is scary; the past and less personal accountability feels safer. Regressives crave more structure, assurance and predictability. Too much freedom scares them, makes them defensive.

Regressives often wish to return to the way things were in the past, when me, my family and my Tribe were stable and receiving multiple benefits. For many Regressives, this typically means when me, my family and my Tribe were more and “on top” relative to other sub-groups.

How hard to push people to change their minds?

Q: What about changing the minds of parents of college-age students?

A: Yes, in retraining, it was surprising how often the need for re-training parents, academic researchers and journalists came up:

- The minds of young interns were the easiest to invite and persuade into the new framework and methods of NCs,

- Existing faculty had more resistance;

- Existing admin staff had more resistance still; and

- Parents had by far the most resistance.

Parents were the least familiar with the ills, inequities New Colleges hoped to remedy; and, the solutions to be applied.

Learnings from Intern Boot Camp trainings

What was learned from four Boot Camp trainings applicable to re-training faculty and staff, four groups of 25 interns each? All the following learnings were applied to the teaching and re-training of adult faculty and admin staff.

With each new training group, specific content was less and less significant. As long as co-facilitators and support staff demonstrated a heartfelt attitude and delivered excellent customer service, interns asked questions useful to the group. Facilitators hearing the same questions again and again, became more efficient at responding with warm, thoughtful responses; often, using their own personal experience.

After interns training group #3, the value of spontaneity and laughter became more and more obvious. Facilitators no longer had to struggle to keep things upbeat. The greater struggle became getting new interns sufficiently grounded and task-oriented; so they could be productive at work on the Monday following their bootcamp.

Women staff and assistants had no problem allowing younger interns to stand up, be seen, field questions from the public at town halls and on TV — and shine. Only by empowering a hundred interns could the Project create enuf change to convince a national youth market “something positive was being done” about colleges.

From the Intern Boot Camp script revised for faculty and admin staff:

INDENT

Most of what we could explain to you — is already inside you. All we really need to do is stop teaching; and instead, arrange exercises so you find your own deepest values. your values are a prime resource for your teaching.

You will as well, learn from each other and answer each other’s questions. This way, more learning takes place for more participants. The endgame of learning is changed behavior, upgrading our habits closer to relevant Best Practices. If you have suggestions for improving this training for the next group of trainees, please came talk to us or write us a note and hand it to an assistant.

end Q

Difference between teaching and simple connecting with people

In one exercise sequence, faculty were supported to discern the difference between going into “teacher mode; and, “simply connecting with people.”

The most masterful educators, such as John-Roger, who passed over in 2014, demonstrated how to avoid drama and take no position in opposition to your conversational partner. To do this you have to be aware of — and minimize — your own unresolved internal drama. If you can stay out of opposition, your partner has nothing to push on, resist or resent. For some people, “Always use love, all ways” sums up this intention.

If there is any un-equalness between teacher and audience, “teaching” easily becomes a subtle form of “drama.” Other subtle forms of “drama” include: Teaching as “setting things right,” aiming to:

- Correct an impression,

- Remove a superstition,

- Initiate a student into a new method or technique,

- Prove I am Right.

If you find yourself teaching apart from compassion and needfulness, it can simply be showing off, another subtle form of drama.

“Teacher” connotes “setting things (unformed minds) straight.” “Educator” connotes, “drawing out pre-existing wisdom from inside students.” Go with educating.

SIDEBAR ~ Educare and Educere

“EducAre” means “to train or to mold.” “EducEre,” means “to lead out.”

quote

“Educare and Educere: Is a Balance Possible in the Educational System?” by Bass, Randall V.; Good, J. W. — Educational Forum, The, v68 n2 p161–168 Winter 2004. Craft (1984) notes these two different Latin roots of the English word “education.”

The etymological difference between these two words encompasses many vociferous debates around education today.

Each side of school reform efforts, probably due to ignorance of the difference, often uses one word, “eduction,” to cover these two very different concepts.

Backwards-looking proponents, use “education” to mean preserving and passing down of knowledge and shaping of youth in the image of their parents.

Forward-looking proponents use “education” to mean preparing a new generation for the changes which are to come — readying youth to create solutions for problems as yet unknown.

Conservatives call for rote memorization so learners become workers in their father’s occupations and businesses.

Progressives call for graduating “self-propelled problem solvers,” who can ask relevant question, stay self-connected in their thinking and feeling; and, who enjoy innovating new solutions.

Further complicating matters, some groups — consciously or not — expect schooling to fulfill both functions; yet, fund only curriculum and methods promoting only educAre.

How educators balance these two educational aims is significant. Is a balance possible? Desired? This author contends in order to achieve balance, educators must start by changing organizational structure, the ways decisions are made, starting in the school’s administration:

- Employ stakeholder perceptions and aims,

- Establish a shared vision of local education.

These are initial steps in facilitating positive group process which will trickle down into classrooms.

I see a need for adult educators to receive explicit training to think more deeply about which term, educAre or educEre they intend, in which circumstances; and, for which reform discussions. In this way education reformers will become more clear, precise and effective in their mental models. Clarifying educAre or educEre will also reduce much unnecessary argument and conflict among reformers.

Kappa Delta Pi, 3707 Woodview Trace, Indianapolis, IN 46268–1158. Tel: 317–871–4900; Tel: 800–284–3167 (Toll Free); Fax: 317–704–2323; Web site: http://www.kdp.org; e-mail: pubs@kdp.org. — https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ724880

End Q

-=+ -=+ -=+

One Writer put it this way, “I’m trying to apply this in my life. For me the answer is forget about teaching; simply connect with other people. Do things which move love back and forth between us. If I’m just moving information between us, I’m only in teacher mode,” not in ‘connecting’ mode.”

People do not mind being led — when they are being led well.

What motivates people to look inside?

What motivates people to go beyond 100% materiality? What motivates people to expand their own Inner Game of Life?

Mostly what works, is supportive group experiences of “living the examined life.” Why? Without support group experiences of looking inside, people are entirely on their own, alone. Few individuals have the strength and motivation to look inside on their own. Very challenging to try to be your own therapist.

Social group experiences of looking inside motivate many individuals to begin this journey. Later, positive growth group experiences motivate us to persist and persevere on our path. Higher ed exercises human capacity to “spin” (think coherently and productively) and expand our inner Game of Life.

Fortunately, three things motivate individuals to “spin” productively in their Inner Game of Life:

1) Supportive group experiences focussed on attention to our Inner Game; and, how we connect with other people,

2) Explicit social permission, and

3) Safe, trustable baby steps.

The first two reasons explain why churches, synagogues and mosques exist: uplifting group worship gives people permission and motivation to look inside.

Without these two motivators, many fewer people are motivated to “live the examined life.”

What does “explicit social permission” look like, sound like? On the outer level, it looks like simple games. in the inner level, it sounds like, “In this room, with these people, you are permitted and encouraged, to try new things, think outside your own box, to identify and surpass your old limits.”

By 2001 or earlier, it was not only liberal arts colleges which had forgotten the power of social permission to grow, it was churches, synagogues, mosques as well. Historians in 2085 believe this is why Insight-like exercises, in a large group, with a heartfelt look and feel, were well-received world-wide at Summer Conference 2033.

Insight learned a male~female balance of facilitators, one male, one female, was a big plus for learners. Gender-balanced couples of facilitators sent an unconscious message: Seminars were safe, trustworthy and authoritative without being rigid. A 50–50 male~female balance, for on-stage facilitators has been preferred ever since.

The 2033 Conference gave the New Colleges Writers Room practice in composing, revising, role playing and test-driving exercises with real students. They learned how the best interactive seminars is alive on three levels:

Top level content is explicit, an engaging idea or theme, a new angle on something co-learners already have some life experience and language for.

Middle level content level is scripted sequences of group processes on this theme: milling, dyads, triads, small groups, role plays, etc.

Deep level content shifts away from Patriarchal, top-down teaching, replaces a “teacher~student,” “expert~student” dynamic towards, everyone, each person, learning at their own rate (including facilitators). Insight and later, New Colleges were replacing the expert~student dynamic with learner-to-learner equality and interaction.

This meant the old role of teacher-professor as expert had to transform. Seminar facilitators had to be educated away from:

- A teacher is an expert who tells you what is worth knowing; and

- A facilitator sets up and arranges live experiences, for groups of learners, to uncover for themselves, wisdom from their own life experiences; and, learning from each other thru empathy.

By 2040 many academic studies of the success of the New Colleges Pilot Program Campuses provided evidence it was this kind of tri-level learner interaction drawing Cultural Creatives, New Colleges ideal customer, to spend their college dollars in New College campuses.

Heartfelt as Inclusion => Control => Affection-Openness

Safety => trust => inclusion => control => openness-affection

…is pretty much a roadmap to heartfelt experiences of openness and affection.

The “heartfelt” look and feel established as an industry standard in LGLSs by Insight Seminars derives from and has its clear theory in Will Schutz’s 1960s model.

Q: So what? Who cares? Why learn this?

A: Schools who leave the earlier two stages unresolved, will be stuck there and never reach the third stage.

If your ideal parent-customer is Cultural Creative Progressives, the heartfelt quality is the biggest benefit you can offer. This is how to engage them. You want to expand your fundraisers and offer more for-pay adult ed classes? This is the benefit they look for.

This is true outside of education too. The absence of heartfelt-openness-affection explains the difference between:

- Progressive orgs able to create and sustain weekly-monthly local meetings; and

- Issue-driven, candidate “horse-race” driven Progressive orgs — which never develop any on-going, sustainable local community.

The above explains why issue-driven, candidate-driven Progressive orgs come and go so frequently, never creating any sustainable on-going constituency. Issue-driven, candidate-driven Progressive orgs are only about — issues and candidate horse races. Once voters vote, the whole org disappears.

To create local, sustainable, on-going constituency, year to year, leaders are encouraged to make identifying and promoting explicit methods for how people can get along, Best Practices n Interpersonal Competency.

For example, using Will’s stage-developmental “formula” above, at any meeting, at any point, leaders can perceive which stage of group process your group is at. Then leaders can assist participants to explore the next further stage, as appropriate and timely.

Pop Quiz ~ Turn to your neighbor. Discuss what stage of group process development this training org is at and why. Which stage is next? Person with longer fingernails goes first.

Q: In other words, I have to pay deliberate and conscious attention to details of group process? Nurture healthy group process as a facilitator?

A: If you want a sustainable local constituency or school, yes. This is the prime dividing line between Old Left, green-eco-political groups, 100% issue-driven, who found local, regular, sustainable, meetings imposible.

If inclusion > control > affection” is too linear for you, a circular model may be more clear.

A need for each of the scarf values

dg-scarf model

To Learn More

strategy+business Celebrating 15 years of the Best Business Thinking” Special anniversary edition PDF online

-=+ -=+ -=+

“Inclusion” can be defined as the feeling, “I am included here socially, at this time.” An individual feels included or excluded primarily by body language signals.

Inclusion (am I included?),

control (who is top dog here?), and

affection-openness (do I belong here?).

When these three issues are resolved, at least to some degree, individuals are likely to feel “welcomed” in a group.

These three issues, Inclusion, Control, Affection, are what our Naive Scientist (see George Kelly and Rudolf Dreikurs), our Child Within, spends much of her time observing and responding to.

The needs, feelings, rules and expectations we have in these three behavioral areas, good and bad, determine connections, partnerships and collaborations of all kinds.

If our partners share similar needs, feelings, rules and expectations in these three areas, then we can get along and collaborate smoothly.

If among partners, individual needs, feelings, rules and expectations diverge more than converge, the partnership is troubled.

Schutz (1958, 1966) sees groups resolving each issue in turn over time if the group wishes to progress to the next higher stage.

Conversely, a struggling group can devolve to an earlier stage, if unable to resolve outstanding issues at its present stage.