Self-differentiated leadership and crucial conversations

Crucial conversations can be described as an exchange between at least two parties where there are high stakes, options vary, and emotions run high (Patterson et al., 2012). Patterson et al. (2012) state that there are three ways we can react to crucial conversations, avoiding them, facing them and handling them poorly, or facing them and handling them well. As an organization, we avoid these crucial conversations, and it shows in the morale of the school. The teachers on our campus are afraid of facing crucial conversations because they are afraid their voices will not be heard, there will be a lack of action, or there will be repercussions for speaking up. So, for my innovative change, I would like to focus on crucial conversations. These crucial conversations will be a segue way into influencing the change, behaviors, and goals of the organization. I believe this will also create a better school culture because others will be willing to bring challenges to the forefront to confront them, instead of harboring ill feelings about day to day operations of the campus. Patterson et al. (2012) also explain that once problems are identified, people must speak up to address the problem, otherwise it will negatively impact the state of our academic program.

References

Grenny, J., Patterson, K., McMillan, R., Switzler, A., & Gregory, E (2012). Crucial conversations tools for talking when stakes are high (2nd). McGraw-Hill Education.