At least that’s according to headteacher, Steve Fairclough, speaking at a national conference of headteachers on the subject of performance-related pay. Fairclough is himself a headteacher, at an independent school. But hold on, fear is bad isn’t it? Well, not really; it is neither good nor bad – it acts as a warning system, alerting us to potential danger and is something that can be crucial to our survival. But what has this got to do with teaching? Over to you Steve…
Headteachers should make their staff “so scared if they don’t perform or if they don’t behave in a way you want them to, you’ll ask them to leave“. He apparently also feels that performance management should introduce a “culture of fear“. Oh Steve. Really? I’m sure he means well and that his, wooden, pea-sized, heart is in the right place (a securely locked drawer, presumably).
Before I go on, I should make it clear that I didn’t hear the speech, and I’m basing this only his comments reported in articles from today’s Independent (13th Feb, 2014) and the TES website (11th Feb, 2014). I had a quick search around for the full speech, but couldn’t find anything – anyway, it got me rather annoyed so I’ve quickly dashed off a stream-of-consciousness rant about it! To be fair, Steve Fairclough’s comments are clarified a little more in the TES article, so he does not come across quite as badly (in my view) as in the Independent, where he seems to be auditioning for a part as one of those stereotypically awful boss in a 70’s/80’s BBC sitcom (ask your parents!). But the use of phrases like ‘culture of fear’ instantly set off alarm bells.
However, seeing as the speech was about performance-related pay, I will begin by saying there is a fair bit of research showing the dangers of performance related pay and how it can actually – over time – negatively affect motivation. Nonetheless, I can’t claim to be an authority on the complexities of performance-related pay, and it is quite possible that this aspect of Steve Fairclough’s system is highly effective, but it is worth mentioning that it can end up having unintended effects.
My problem with Steve Fairclough’s comments, related to his ‘culture of fear’. In fact, as a fairly decent human being, I have several problems with it. To start with, morally this doesn’t sit well at all for me; why treat people like that? Secondly, I can’t quite see how his ‘culture of fear’ for teachers is congruent with his own school’s ‘vision and values‘, which seeks to ensure their pupils learn to be “sensitive to the needs of others“. But maybe it doesn’t have to be congruent? I’m no headteacher, after all; perhaps, ‘do as I say, not as I do‘ is an entirely appropriate way to lead others. I am not convinced though. Thirdly, and moving on from moral arguments, the type of management style he promotes is well-known for being negatively associated with levels of psychological, and physical well-being of staff, as well as sickness absence levels. I’m not saying that ‘poor’ performers in any job should be given a free pass to drift along – but surely we should always start by supporting people, and promoting an environment where it feels ok to raise problems and seek help if they need it. The National Institute for Health & Social Care guidance for promoting mental well-being in the workplace, as well as the Health & Safety Executive stress management standards, also explicitly highlight the importance of this. The research they base their recommendations has amply demonstrated the impact this can have – on people, and things like employee turnover (which Steve seems quite keen on, to be fair).
Manager/supervisor behaviour has also been linked with ‘presenteeism’ (i.e. when people are unwell, but still come to work) and it should be obvious that an environment where people are fearful of being labelled a poor performer may be particularly prone to presenteeism. Perhaps Steve would see this as an endorsement of his style – people too scared to be off sick? Brilliant. But, of course, it isn’t brilliant. Those who continue to work under those circumstances are more susceptible to burnout, and more serious long-term absence; after all, we all have a breaking point. Secondly, fear is severely detrimental to cognitive performance – our ability to effectively process information is inhibited under these circumstances. In a job that relies so heavily on the ability of teachers to think, process information, and effectively deal with own students, fear seems an exceptionally poor way to rule. How many of us would be at our clear-thinking best when working in a fearful environment; where pressure and fear is constant? A little bit of pressure can often be helpful in motivating us (deadlines, presentations etc), but the kind of constant pressure (or to use Steve’s word, ‘fear’) provided by the knowledge that if we slip up we will be out of the door is therefore not only unnecessary, but damaging to both people and their performance.
I am sure the reporting of this speech has been simplified, so perhaps his position is not as ludicrous as it appears. And I also cannot say with certainty that some aspects of what Steve Fairclough has done to his school haven’t been effective – at least not in the short-term. However, at best, the deliberate use of this type of language sounds anachronistic and, at worst, extremely harmful. I hope this kind of thinking is left back in the dark ages where it belongs.
Edit: (21st Feb 2014) Steve Fairclough has since claimed his comments were taken out of context. They seemed pretty unequivocal to me, and I’m intrigued to know what other context they could have been used in (satire?!), but at least there is some recognition that this type of talk is damaging.
Do you ever feel that you’re just not a ‘statistics person’? Well, you’re not alone because research suggests that the vast majority of students in psychology-based degrees feel exactly the same (Onwuegbuzie & Wilson, 2003). Maybe there’s some comfort in that; I certainly remember feeling that way as an undergraduate, but just what is a ‘statistics person’ anyway? Are some people born with a ’magical’ ability to comprehend statistics? Now there are many things that are passed on via our genes, but if you can show me evidence that some newborns enter this world with an appreciation of skew and kurtosis, or a working knowledge of SPSS, I will give you my collection of S-Club-7 singles (*my lawyers have asked me to make it clear that this is a joke and that I will not, under any circumstances, be giving these away – but you knew that). Sure, a decent level of cognitive ability will help when thinking is required – and some of this is indeed genetic – but, if you are accepted onto an undergraduate degree you really do have more than enough basic intelligence to handle everything that a stats/research methods course will throw at you. However, that doesn’t mean it won’t feel confusing or intimidating sometimes, so maybe you still don’t believe there’s much you can do if you are not one of those ‘stats’ people.
In fact, research from Carol Dweck suggests that this belief alone may be one of the main things holding us back. Professor Dweck theorises that people tend to hold one of two contrasting mindsets regarding ‘the fixedness or malleability of personal characteristics’. On the one hand, people with a ‘fixed’ mindset see personal characteristics such as intelligence, maths ability, or even shyness, as fixed traits, while people with a ‘growth’ mindset believe these can be developed through additional effort or strategy (there is a nice overview of ‘mindset’ here which goes into more detail).
I have to confess that before I became aware of Dweck’s theory, I think I probably had a fixed mindset; it wasn’t something I ever actually thought about, because we are often not consciously aware of these beliefs. But they can still be highly influential; especially in the way we perceive and respond to learning situations. There is now ample evidence to suggest that people with a growth mindset tend to show greater improvement in learning situations than those with a fixed mindset (e.g. Blackwell et al, 2007). This makes sense, because even though learning new things can be very rewarding it can also be difficult at times – that is part of the process. Because it can be so challenging we often need a lot of persistence to keep going, especially when things get harder or we feel like we’re not getting anywhere. The theory suggests that with a fixed mindset – being more likely to view ability as something that cannot really be changed too much – there is less point in pushing yourself to improve because it feels like it’s not going to make that much difference. In contrast, someone with a growth mindset has more incentive to keep trying and practicing, because – for them – there is some light at the end of the tunnel; they believe that their efforts can make a difference, even if things are getting difficult. It is a little more complex than that, of course, but you get the idea.
So far, all I’ve told you is that having a growth mindset seems to be helpful, while a fixed mindset is not. Which means, now all you have to do is change your ‘mindset’ and away you go? Well, yes – if you can. But although beliefs can be highly tenacious, there is actually a lot of evidence indicating that many of those abilities commonly viewed as innate can indeed be developed, regardless of your mindset. Long-term practice of a skill is associated with physical changes in your brain; in fact research has actually suggested that in some circumstance, detectable changes may begin to manifest themselves in as little as one week (May et al, 2007). Nonetheless, the real benefits come from sustained effort, over a period of time, as demonstrated in relation to skills such as meditation (Hölzel et al, 2011), juggling (Driemeyer et al, 2008), and taxi-drivers’ ability to navigate London’s complex road network (Maguire et al, 2000), among many others. In other words, these abilities are not fixed. For example, I’m sure you’ve heard plenty of people saying that they’re not very ‘artistic’ – artistic ability might seem like one of those things some people are just born with, but I followed an inspirational thread on an online forum that shows what practice can do – this person committed to drawing and posting one picture a day and, over a period of years (that’s right, it didn’t happen overnight!), they went from relative beginner, to producing some amazing work (the original thread from Jonathan Hardesty – aka MindCandyMan – is here).
You could say the transformation is incredible – except it’s not really a ‘transformation’, it’s a progression. That’s the whole point. But I’m not really writing this for people who want an easy ride, I’m writing it for those who might feel that they just aren’t cut out for ‘stats’ (or anything else, for that matter); people who might feel that they could never learn a particular skill or ability. But you really can. However, that example was about drawing and painting, which is not the same as stats, is it? Well, as it happens…
Although improvements in artistic ability are much easier to see, the principle is the same. Sigmundsson and colleagues’ (2013) study indicates that practice is also what really counts when it comes to maths-related skills, not so much what you were born with. Meanwhile, Aydin et al (2007) showed a strong relationship between the length of time spent as a mathematician and specific brain-related changes. So, – as if I haven’t got you excited enough about this already – budding statisticians among you can look forward to “an increase in gray matter density in the right inferior parietal lobule” (Aydin et al, 2007). Now if that is not something to get you rushing for your stats lecture notes, I don’t know what is.
There you go – the more you practice, the stronger and more efficient these pathways in your brain become; but at first, it probably doesn’t feel like it! If you’re learning something new, there probably aren’t too many of these paths/connections in the first place, which is why it might feel so hard; but these will develop as you study/practice. I always think of learning a new skill being similar to hacking a path through thick jungle; it can feel like a staggering amount of effort, yet all you’ve really done is make the tiniest of gaps in the ‘undergrowth’ – a path that is still a struggle to get through. That can feel quite demotivating, but if you keep going, slowly your efforts will make the path wider, and easier to get through, until eventually – after a lot of work – you’ll have built a nice wide motorway that can take you from A to B in no time at all. In other words, what previously took you a lot of effort, now feels fairly easy. But remember, it doesn’t happen overnight – the frustration and confusion you might experience in learning are like the pain you might experience in the gym if you were trying to build up your strength or stamina: a necessary part of the process.
This is great news because it means that a decent understanding of maths and stats – or almost anything else – is with our grasp if we just stick with it and keep practicing. That’s not to say that some of us might take longer than others, but we can do it. However, there is a downside, because once we know this it means we can’t rely on the ‘I’m just not a maths/stats person’ excuse anymore!
So, although there isn’t a magic wand that can instantly transform your mindset (if you needed to), being aware of your own mindset, and your capacity to learn new skills, can be an important first step.