Feature Article

But this Shared Thinking involves stretching our perceptions and expanding our concepts of what Sharing means. (For sure, Shared Thinking is "not what we think." Shared Thinking is what "We'all (we all) think."

Sidebar

(Note: this is the first-person-plural version of the noted, Texan second-person-plural, "Y' all.")

Shared thinking is possibility thinking, collaborative sharing, group wisdom, vision and success consciousness..."breakthrough" thinking at its best.

Mistaking a Product , or Byproduct for the Process

Some Shared/ Community Building advocates mistake the product (conversations) or the byproduct (friendship) for the target outcome. It is a mistake to think that the conversations that are developed by the community, is a product, or that the friendships that develop from meetings and interactions are a byproduct.

Process, not Product

The power of Shared Thinking is in the process, and depends little on the product. This is because real-world, stimulating, problem-solving focused thinking is never done. This kind of thinking is always "a work in progress."

The creation, development, testing and bug-fixing of ideas occurs as a process that relies on collaboration and learning; but the process is never finished.

Shared Thinking projects are "works in progress" rather than a wrapped and finished, final packages.

Shared Solutions for Education

Shared Solutions for education must take this Open Thinking process one step further, and establish a collaborative dialog among equals (our students, teachers and administrators are equal participants with our parents and patrons…all education stakeholders, even politicians).

Shared Thinking recognizes that the educational stakeholder community has more wisdom, knowledge and insight than a single, talented individual...and Shared Thinking recognizes that communities of school district stakeholders raise this wisdom, knowledge and insight to a level of magnitude higher than the insight held by some isolated groups (for example superintendents, principals, politicians, techies).

Brainstorming: Thinking on Steroids

Brainstorming in a tool that makes Shared Solutions powerful and relevant.

So, Shared Thinking advocates need to approach projects by examining various slants and vantage points of our stakeholders. We need to keep the process in view (and avoid the seduction of advocating a product), no matter if that product is superior to the competition.

We need to focus upon the process, and "hang on for the ride" because we can't predict where we might end up.

Just because a product is superior today does not mean that the product will be superior tomorrow, or even an hour from now. "Leapfrogging" is a label that is used by competitors to mean that one product surpasses the others, not in a step-by-step race, but with a leap forward.

So, Shared Thinking must keep up with changes in products and performances, in fact, Shared Thinking must remain "one step ahead."

What it takes for a Successful Educational Project

For Shared Thinking projects to be successful in the education arena, our solutions and options must appeal to many constituencies besides the highly trained, specialized, and technical folks. So, our first goal is to increase the relevancy of Shared Thinking Solutions to as wide a range of school district stakeholders as possible, especially teachers and students.

When our thinking is stretched to include the view and vantage points of a multiplex and multitude of stakeholders; we come to understand that Shared Thinking Solutions are real-world teaching and learning projects.

Shared Thinking projects apply Shared thinking and Shared tools to the instruction process. Our teaching and learning projects are not software projects or hardware and infrastructure initiatives, or the latest repackaging of educational theory.

The use of tools, software, technology and theory always takes a back seat to instructional goals in the teaching and learning process, and Shared Thinking accelerates this action and activity.

Change and Reform

Successful Shared advocates come to see that Shared thinking promotes and targets…

• Processes for change and reform


• Solutions based upon the dynamic interaction among clients and end users (such as teachers and students)


• The dynamic interplay among trainers and trainees


• The dynamic interchange among curriculum specialists and professional development providers


• The dynamic interrelationship among technical support specialists and the rest of the educational community

Collaboration and a Real-World View: the Real Driving Force for Shared Projects

The goal of any Shared Solution in education is the improvement of instruction in areas where Shared Solutions excel.

By considering, weighing and interacting with thoughts and ideas of our stakeholders (our clients); we stretch our vision, we encounter a greater depth of feedback. We widen, deepen, broaden and strengthen our insight. Shared Thinking advocates use this dynamic community-based feedback and this dynamic open discussion to problem-solve and to make decisions...crafting solutions and decisions that work in the real world...not just fantasy plans that seem to work on our "project management statements of work," just seem to work on "Scope of Work" documents, and just seem to work on critical path project tracking tools.

Relevancy of Interests: Success of the Community

Most school district stakeholders don't know that a Shared Thinking Community exists to serve their needs. And, most school distinct stakeholders hold vested interests in lots of things, but don't have a need to become vested in a letting the control of ideas vest in a community.

So, it becomes the Shared Thinking Community's responsibility to listen well and adapt to the beliefs, fears and reluctance to change that we encounter.

(Note: we have to be careful that we don't mis-label reactions that seem to balk and back off from our ideas. The tendency is to label these reluctant behaviors as "resistance" and to frame the resistor as "our enemy."

In reality, any balking and back stepping is a gift to our Shared Thinking because it reveals that there is something missing, something that keeps our community-based thinking from being complete.

A Real-World Example

This listening, paying attention and believing what stakeholders at all levels tell us is where Shared advocates "make or break" an Shared Solution project in our schools, and in the area of technology integration, the listening to teachers and students wasn't done.

Shared Thinking advocates either draw these stakeholders into the project, honor and prize their contributions and points of view, understand that these stakeholders have greater wisdom about teaching and learning (than politicians, superintendents, directors, principals). When it comes to the real-world of teaching and learning, when it comes to the real-world of delivering instruction and when it comes to the real-world of driving student outcome improvements… a Shared Thinking project either reaches a substantial portion of its potential; or, fails outright. Shared Thinking and active listening make the difference, but only if the sharing is real.

Target Real Problems, Or Else

Shared Thinking advocates either target and solve our stakeholders' greatest issues, concerns and pains; or fail to meet the promises of improved teaching and learning that is expected from the community project.

Shared Thinking projects that get this right, that consider teachers, principals, curriculum specialists, and students as "indispensable project consultants;" are the projects and initiatives that are successful.

The projects and initiatives that ram "pretend-shared-solutions" through to adoption (by sales pitches, subterfuge and chain of command power plays) always fail to achieve their potential. Guaranteed!

Relevancy or Else: No Relevancy equals "Missing in Action" Community Project Success

Shared Thinking Solutions must be relevant for all stakeholders.

But, politicians, superintendents, principals, director and technical staff cannot, should not, (and should be tickled with a cattle prod if they try) think that they know what teachers and students need unless, until and after they…

• Ask


• Listen


• Ask again

These bureaucratic, administrative and technical professionals should have more sense than to believe that "laws, policies, directives, and budget cuts" equate to test-smart, project-based, engaged-learning, outcomes-focused lesson delivery, or meaningful learning assignments. The Shared Thinking process blares, flags, screams for a focus upon adequate funding, sufficient professional development (time and time to implement), support and measurable curriculum-based objectives for every community project.

Shared Thinking First Steps

So, the first steps of a Shared Thinking project are "asking teachers and students what the learning objectives are" and "brainstorming with teachers, students and other stakeholders."

During the brainstorming and sharing process, all ideas are accepted and one idea may invoke a "piggy back' response, or provoke an opposite idea, an antithetical response. One idea, both, or yet another idea may prove to be beneficial. It is difficult to judge which ideas will bear fruit; so, open discussion is encouraged and promoted.

Another component of brainstorming is allowing participants and learners to make mistakes. This is another Shared Thinking strength...where the community steps up and shares the task of fixing what needs to be fixed. This strategy, when accompanied by a wide, deep and broad inquiry into ideas and possible solutions results in what some folks label as "breakthrough thinking."

The best implementation of the Shared Thinking philosophy means an open-minded approach to problem-solving and decision-making, a willingness to dialog with stakeholders of all backgrounds and a willingness to communicate with people with all levels of expertise. If only those in the highest echelons of authority or expertise are encouraged to participate, how will "Newbies" (who by definition, make mistakes) acquire the skills to progress in their own knowledge?

Sidebar

Note: This is another of the myths surrounding the lackluster performance of the technology integration movement. The myth has it that teachers were afraid to venture from their "expert status role" and be seen to be making mistakes by students. While this myth is plausible, the reality is that students know that technology involves mistakes. That is why video game players get a "fist full of lives" when they play video games.

If there is only one "right answer" then the person or group that holds that card is king. That is "closed-minded thinking" at its finest, but darkest hour. Shared Thinking understands that all together we are smarter than the brightest and best single one of us. This makes Shared Thinking Solutions powerful.

And, weaving the discussion with the threads of many viewpoints (from many stakeholders) creates a rich tapestry of Shared ideas.

Vision and Success Consciousness

But, brainstorming is not the only component of Shared Thinking. Vision and Success Consciousness are even more important.

Vision is related to the clarity with which an Shared Thinking project's goals are sculpted and held to. And, success consciousness is the attitude and values of the of key players who develop the project.

The vision that the project's originators and sponsors hold affects the outcome of a project. Unfortunately, you cannot know what is in the hearts and minds of any other principle member of the project community, and this aspect of the project remains hidden until the results are observed and known.

The vision that key Shared Thinking project originators and community sponsors hold is difficult to know, and the level of success consciousness of these players is difficult to know. However, these are key crucial and key components for any project, especially Shared Thinking projects.

The open communication and the honoring of all stakeholders is an important aspect that reveals a sliver of success consciousness, but, it is still possible that manipulators, sales people, and power-focused chain of command people agree to the Shared Thinking model of communication because they know that the model propels success, rather than because they hold all stakeholders in esteem.

Unfortunately, even a clear vision can weaken as the community project progresses, and other folks can be brought into the project before they develop a clear knowledge of the vision for the project.

Success consciousness, in practice, boils down to the belief systems held by key project originators and sponsors.

This is also difficult to know because our vision into the hearts and minds or others is obscured by the mist and fog in our own heart and mind. We must perceive what is in our own consciousness before we begin to sense what is in the hearts and minds of others.

Unfortunately, Shared Thinking advocates face power, control and tradition-oriented community members who may not believe in the wisdom of community interactivity.

Some community stakeholders are complacent in their status and authority, and shy away from honest and transparent communication with others.

The upshot?

Make sure that a "people person" rather than a politician, bureaucrat, manager, administrator, salesperson or techie" is in charge of a community-based project.

Shared Thinking Projects and School Leadership

Unfortunately, some school district leaders are politicians, i.e., people who say what they think that other people want to hear (and possibly with limited thoughts of their own). Look out for these folks because they are found in every stakeholder group.

But, these folks have lack vision of their own except one built on the shifting sands of taking advantage of situations by reflecting what they believe are other people's opinions. The upshot: we seldom find clarity of vision in any of these folks, so never place a politician in charge of a project. In fact, avoid placing a politician in any position of authority, responsibility or importance. These folks wreak havoc in most endeavor that they experience.

Sidebar

Note: Evidence of this dearth of vision in politicians abounds in the circus arena of government where clowns, ringmasters, jugglers, tight-rope artists, animal tamers and slight-of-hand performers entertain us with their antics.

So, what is the Shared Thinker to do to motivate a project towards success when such important factors as the vision and success consciousness of stakeholders remain hidden?

Here are some steps to consider:

• Make sure that an honest and ethical person is in charge of the community project


• Make sure that the vision for the project is communicated to everyone that is involved
• Note: The Shared Thinking and the open (transparent) communication process serves to share the vision and serves to discover how the vision (and associate goals) will play out during its implementation


• The "buy-in" of project stakeholders and participants is really a "buy-in" for the shared vision for the project.
• Maintain a positive attitude and a belief that the project will be successful


• Hold to attitudes and beliefs (that the project will be successful) in a gentle, caring and friendly way


• Trust that open and transparent communication and a vision of success for the project will attract success-oriented folks and create discomfort for those people that would be detrimental to the project
• It is amazing how negative, project-albatross type folks respond to positive, success-oriented communication by self-rejection


• But do not be surprised if these folks become hostile, disgruntled, backbiting and insidious. Just hold gently to the positive vision for the project


• Avoid any "in kind" response to the negative people that orbit around the community project


• Continue to respect these folks, continue to wish them well, and continue trusting the open and transparent communication process and the Shared Thinking process
• Picture success results for the project as "already happened"
• Also feel, believe and sense this success in a multi-modal, multi-sensory way


• Listen to self-talk and listen to the success-talk of others in your mind as though they are commenting on the success of the project


• Project your thoughts into the future and perceive how that success continues


• If any thoughts or images seem to be in discord, redo the vision of the project until all images and all steps of the creative imagination process come into harmony


• You will be amazed at how the right people, the right resources and the right information are attracted to the project
• Trust that the negative people will add many benefits to the project by pointing out areas where the project vision is weak
• Silently and honestly thank these people in your heart and mind because they benefit your project in ways that you may discover later, or in ways that you may never know


• Consider your community project to be like a chick that hatches from an egg. The chick needs to struggle to exit the eggshell, and the chick even grows an attachment to its beak to assist in the exit process


• But, if we break the shell to assist the chick, we create a weak and sickly bird that never becomes healthy


• Somehow, the chick (like our community project) needs the struggle to become strong

Vision and success consciousness can "fall through the cracks" an take a back seat during the excitement and stress of a Shared Thinking project. Be sure Shared Thinking occurs during the implementation of your community project, not just at its inception.

Sidebar

Do not trust folks at any level of an Shared Thinking process who cannot hold to a positive vision, who cannot hold love and respect for teachers and children in their hearts and minds. Encourage everyone to participate with open and transparent communication, but understand that some stakeholders will do otherwise.

Hold success consciousness in your heart and mind, so that you cannot harbor hatred.

The person who cannot embrace the polarity of opposites, who cannot find value and benefit because of preconceived disgust for other's successes, and who cannot honestly embrace alternatives that might be best practices for the community project (because of bias) is one who stagnates Shared Thinking. Such a person is the one who mires (and fogs) any community project that they become involved with, yet they are indispensable to the community.

Collaborative Sharing

Collaborative sharing also is a creative process that is bigger, higher, wider, deeper than brainstorming.

Brainstorming is a "wild ride" a stretching and a creating, a weaving of associations, and a kick off towards tangents and parallels. Brainstorming is like a skyrocket that launches fragments into colorful star bursts...delighting many but their glow is quickly extinguished.

But, collaborative sharing is the slow and steady, meticulous, often painful, building out of a vision.

Collaborative sharing is hammering out of dents, a smelting of ore and a purifying to rid the project of slag, an oiling of squeaky wheels, of giving all (read every) stakeholder groups their due.

Collaborative sharing is the process that a Dali Lama, a Mahatma Gandhi, a Mother Theresa would take to ensure that all people (stakeholders) receive respectful and caring treatment. No group is ignored, stomped on, ramrodded or forced to acquiesce to the "solution de jour." Everyone is respected and consensus, rather than "who comes out on top" is the prize.

But, why would anyone want to give up winning, give up taking personal credit; and let group-think prevail?

Answer: They hold the best interests and well being of our students and teachers in mind. Their vision is the "greater good of all students, teachers and stakeholders."

Group Wisdom

Even if an individual thinker is brighter, smarter, more talented…more talented than all the rest of the stakeholders; pushing through their personal agenda is "short-sighted."

The reason is that these community projects depend on other people to carry them out, and that it takes other people to see the project through to completion.

The community project depends upon the talents, skills, and knowledge of others; but the project also depends upon the attitudes, feelings, beliefs, values, insights, motivation and good will of others.

And in implementing a Shared Thinking Solution in a school district, the attitudes, feelings, beliefs, values, insights, motivation and good will of stakeholders positioned along all levels of the chain of command are crucial.

But, teachers in particular hold the key to instruction because teachers are the stakeholders that deliver direct instruction. Other stakeholders may just need to be happy that their issues and concerns are addressed, but teachers must have the support, professional development (and anything else that it takes) to ensure the Shared Thinking project's success.

Thinking Communities: Pay Attention to Teachers

Paying attention when teachers talk is more than just being polite. Taking to heart what teachers are saying, and acting upon what they tell us is more than good sense. Listening, and listening between the lines. Understanding what teachers (and other stakeholders) said, understanding what teachers and other stakeholders meant to say, and understanding what teachers and other stakeholders would have said if they could, even what they wish that they had said…are part of the conversation that exists when Shared Thinking prizes the wisdom of the group.

Giving and Receiving

Shared Thinking communities pride themselves in sharing, but, giving is the other side of the complex set of interactions that comprise giving.

Giving means more than sharing. If the begging bum panhandles a quarter, and you begrudge the quarter that you drop with disdain into his alcohol-perfumed hand, you have given next to nothing.

In the same way, if Shared Thinking community members hold attitudes of self-superiority, disdain, distrust, deception or a focus upon a project (without regard for the people involved in making that project a success); the project cannot reach its potential.

Sidebar

Attitude and value make all the difference because people are not boxes and wires, but even boxes and wires respond in a positive manner when we care for them.

Of course boxes (such as computers) can turn from speedy track stars to brain-dead malingerers in the space of three years; but people remain precious throughout the life cycle of the project.

And Shared Thinking community members must become aware of other negative thinking.

Take for example, any prejudice.

Of course, an attitude of prejudice is unwise because holding hatred and a vision of success in awareness at the same time is incongruous. And, holding any attitude of bias, stilts and convolutes thinking.

Holding prejudice in mind or heart costs Shared Thinking the flexibility that is needed, binds thinking to a type of tunnel vision that excludes opportunities and increases the burdens that are placed on the community. Often prejudice will force the elimination of elegant solutions in favor of a kludge that takes the long way around to avoid the object of that prejudice.

Of course, what really happens is that bias and prejudice leads the community project through a struggle that could have been avoided if only a spirit of giving and receiving were present.

Praising our competitors and people who disagree with us, and wishing our competitors and those "obstinate others" only good is the attitude that leads to success. Begrudging success to any other, even a corporate entity or incorporated organization , blocks that good from pouring itself upon a community project.

Sidebar

Since hatred is "alien" to an accepting-of-all Universe, the obvious conclusion is that those who hate, hate a part of themselves; and they are just projecting that hatred of themselves outward toward (real or imagined) others.

Breakthrough Thinking

Breakthrough thinking is any change in thought, attitude, perception, planning or insight that leads us from "locked in our comfortable rut kind of results" to success.

What do we have to breakthrough, break out of, escape from?

We have to break out or escape from our belief that we know…

• What is best for ourselves


• What is best for others


• How things really are


• How things should really be


• The best way to do or perform anything


• What experience is like for others and what will help them do or perform better

One characteristic of breakthrough thinking is that the components are simple, not complex. Others often say, "Now why didn't I think of that. It was right in front of us all along."

Whether the breakthrough is creative associative, i.e., putting common things together in novel ways; or, creative dissociated, i.e., separating things that have always "gone together; the breakthrough idea just stands out as better.

We break through barriers, mostly barriers of thought and assumptions; but often barriers of habit, feeling, attitudes and conditioning.

But breakthrough thinking at its best in Shared Thinking projects. This is thinking that accounts for the wants, needs, desires, fears and pains of multiple groups of stakeholders; and satisfies many or most of these issues with an elegant solution.

Everyone in each stakeholder group may not receive everything that they wanted or needed, but at least they are satisfied that their concerns were heard and every effort was made to accommodate their needs.

Teachers, students, participants, clients and end users who feel that their needs and issues were cared for in this way build a real, vested buy-in (not the "lip-service, appear to be cooperative" buy-in that reveals its true characteristics at the most crucial, critical, "no turning back now, no escaping catastrophe" embarrassing, "egg-on-your-face" time.

Efficient Solutions

The collaborative solution may seem inefficient to the politicians and chain-of-command authority figures who pride themselves on getting their way.

But, the Shared Thinker has to be sure that the footprints that they leave is not one of their stomping on teachers, students and community members by forcing (kicking and whining) compliance to the community project.

There are all manner of "monkey wrenches" that disgruntled, unappreciated community members can toss into an Shared Thinking project if they are forced, bullied, beguiled, or cajoled to participate in a project that they don't like (or forced to comply with an authority that they don't like).

Even worse than a community project that fails to build buy-in, is a project that increases the pain that teachers and students feel and experience.

For example,…

• A technology integration project that requires teachers to stay after school (without compensation) to learn to operate software


• A technology integration project that increases the amount of work that teachers must perform (without increasing measurable student achievement), or


• A "Catch-22" project that "everyone just knows will produce spectacular results", but doesn't, therefore the problem that scuttled the project must be because the teachers

All learning community projects fail if teachers and students are not considered first.

The Technically Superior Solution

Shared Thinking also skirts the problem of the "technically superior solution" because the technically superior solution is impractical in the real world. Open and transparent communication exposes the "technically superior solution for what it really is.

For example, stunning technology rollouts, without professional development, without an educational (or business case) for the project and without stakeholder buy-in are "real-world impractical." Prescribing technical solutions without exploring the feelings, fears, stresses, conflicting commitments, bureaucratic system inconsistencies and management incongruities is "real-world impractical."

But, Open dialog is practical. Brainstorming is practical. Open and transparent sharing is practical. Success consciousness is practical. Breakthrough thinking is practical.

For example, teacher members of Shared Thinking collaborative would not want to be bothered with the intricacies about setting up Web servers, and minor distinctions between computer specifications would hold limited appeal to a campus principal or curriculum specialist. But members of each of these groups would be interested in the professional development issues, educational case justification for the community project that used these resources. Teachers, principals and curriculum specialists would be glad to turn the logistics of managing software for the community project, as long as they were consulted about the need and value for that software.

The technically superior community project starts with teachers, students, principals, curriculum specialists; then matches the appropriate professional development, technical support, hardware, software and infrastructure to get the measurable increases in instructional delivery and measurable increases in student performance done.

The technically superior community project focuses upon the process of arriving at superior results, and then brings only the highest quality processes and resources to bear on the solution.

But, Shared Thinking community members need the integrity to explain what conditions apply to the project, and they need the professional and ethical integrity to steer community members away from high-tech, superior technology if that technology stands little chance of delivering on the community project's real world goals.

This is what technology integration should have been before recommending so many initiatives that lacked measurable teaching and learning goals. The Shared Thinking solution will focus on a direct relationship to measurable content area and subject matter achievement in learning communities.