First Who, Then What

I've been reading the business book "Good To Great" this week and it is very interesting.  The book talks about companies that used to be merely good, but at some point made a transition to greatness.  This being a corporate business book, the author's definition of "great" is, unfortunately, rather limited--  he defines "great" as powerfully outperforming the general stock market..... meaning these great companies had profits and stock gains far greater than competitors and the general stock market.

That's a nice little benefit for stockholders I suppose, but hardly what I would call "great". 

However,  the defining characteristics of these companies were quite interesting... and applicable to all kinds of organization greatness-- including greatness in schools.  I couldn't help but think of schools I've worked at as I read the book.   The difference between the management of those schools-- and that of the great companies-- is stark and huge.

One of the most important and most interesting things all the great companies did is that they strictly followed a policy of "First Who...".  

First Who means that the companies were MOST concerned with getting great people, not with creating a great vision or plan or system of control.  These companies realized that if they recruited and collected great talent, they wouldn't need to worry about motivation, control, innovation, and incentives....   because great people motivate themselves and are automatic innovators. 

Another interesting point-- these companies delayed strategic planning until they had gathered a large group of extremely talented people-- then they let those people make the plans, adapt to change, and innovate.  

By contrast, the non-great companies they studied did the opposite.  These so-so organizations focused first on creating plans, regulations, rules, and ways of controlling employees.  First they made a plan, then they tried to hire people to implement the plan.  Turns out this is a recipe for mediocrity.

What's the lesson for schools?  Well, its exactly the same--    first and foremost, focus obsessively on getting and keeping outstanding teachers.   Scour your area for the absolute best teachers.   Recruit them from other schools or other fields. 

Once you get them, do everything possible to keep them.   Likewise, once you've assembled that kind of talent, don't squash them with controls-- rather, turn them loose.   This is the kind of approach you see at places like Apple Computer, Gore Associates, etc.    But its an approach you almost never see in education.  In fact, I've never seen a school run this way.

Even more than large corporations, schools are places that love control, rules, and bureaucracy.  So much so that the term "innovative school" is almost an oxymoron.  Schools, as we all know, are the graveyards of innovation.

In the end, this is the core reason I started Effortless English.  I realized that I would never find a school that was great-- and I knew I lacked the money to build one myself.   I also realized that most students have very negative feelings and memories about schools-- and this makes it very difficult for even a progressive school to succeed.

In the end, I realized that schools, in fact, are not necessary for learning English... and in many ways they are very harmful.  

With the internet, we no longer need mediocre schools.   Students don't need them.  And teachers don't need them. 

We can now build powerful, positive, egalitarian international learning communities.   By doing so, we will teach and learn more effectively, more quickly, and more enjoyably.

Which brings me back to the initial point of this post.   In the end, what will make Effortless English great is not me or the lessons--  it will be the many GREAT members who share their passion, enthusiasm, and creativity.   I have already discovered the secret to making Effortless English truly great--  I only need to focus on getting great members.  So far, we've off to a great start!