From Archetype to Innovation

‘This stardust won’t settle, because none of us should settle.’
Jacinda Ardern

‘Leadership Principles & Practice’ was conceived by Professor Mark Orams, as an archetype following Jungian behavioural configurations, a collectively-inherited, unconscious, universally-present idea of how things should be, have been, and must always be. Recurring descriptive phrases include ‘patterns’, ‘standard examples’, ‘similar repeating traits’ and ‘objects copying/emulating each other’.

Ings says ‘questioning is the source of creative thought’ but, with archetypes, questioning is often the first capacity sacrificed.

When Steve Cox and I took over the paper we questioned this structure, a ‘stand and talk’ delivery model, one lecturer, with ‘fairness’ meaning ‘everyone treated the same’ despite the obvious fact that we’re not. We chose, therefore, to develop the paper into an ever-evolving exemplar.

Exemplar theory tells us we categorise objects and ideas by comparing new stimuli with examples stored in the memory, the stored example being the ‘exemplar’. New stimuli are categorised based on similarities with those stored in that category. For example, we create the ‘learning’ category by retaining a memory of all ‘learning’ we have experienced: visual, verbal, aural, physical, logical, social, and solitary. If the new stimulus is similar to stored examples, we put it in our ‘learning’ category ensuring we each become progressively more different from everyone else.

Celebrating this ‘difference’ requires a variety of unique approaches if we are to authentically access each learner and impact their ‘learning’ exemplar.

A constructivist schema which insists ‘learning is an active, individualised, constructive process’ with the learner as ‘information constructor’ underpins this model. Our front-loaded content is delivered in ways that build on the individual’s existing knowledge and advances towards the trust-based, questioning culture alive at the system’s heart.

Juliani says ‘you cannot empower students to be self-directed, responsible, critical-thinkers if they can’t ask their own questions, otherwise you’re teaching compliance, not responsibility’.

Our learners develop a compassionate, questioning, non-compliant culture that is based on trust.

We are committed to te ao Māori values of aroha, tika, pono. Our kaupapa is fiercely bicultural with Ti Tiriti o Waitangi and te ao Māori values at its core. Generosity and compassion, honesty, integrity, doing things right, in the right way, the right order, are paramount with the result being a joyously innovative miscellany, a mix of elation in community and a deep satisfaction with self. 

Chinese and Samoan student reaction to our Asian and Pacific leadership models was that ‘the content has been authentic, in-depth and useful. 

We’ve had great contributions from Cr Fa’anana Afeso Collins, Dr Huhana Hickey (disability sector), Dr Nancy McIntyre (Asian leadership), Inspector Tracy Phillips (Police), Jackie Clark QSM (‘The Aunties’), Moana Maniapoto MNZM (musician) and Auckland’s first gay councillor Richard Hills. Maniapoto, Clark and Hickey brought a commitment to leadership by Māori women, Phillips spoke of women in largely male workplaces while Hills adding a minority, white, middle-class voice.

Learners are introduced to a range of theories – trait, charismatic, transformational, power/status, tribal – and exposed to ‘self-knowledge’ surveys, so they already understand what works best for them. Rather than choosing one theory we encourage learners to look at constellations of theories working together or happily in conflict.

We also deliver contemporary theories through moving image because this disrupts the pervasive belief that learning only happens via the printed word. 

Learners today have a vivid palette of colours making communication immediate, rich, and complex. Given a choice between Keneki’s journey in ‘Tokyo Ghoul’ and a decades old book on Churchill I know which I’d prefer.

The seeds of glorious anarchy in Assignment Three are planted in Week One. Bloom tells us Level Seven learners should ‘create, generate and interrogate new ideas, new perceptions, analyse discoveries, evaluate, hypothesise, critique, experiment and judge’ so we made this possible. 

Couros tells us that, as educational leaders, our job is ‘not to control those we serve, but to unleash their talent. If innovation is a priority, we must create a culture where trust is the norm.’

Without trust, nothing.

Steve was enthusiastic about self-assessment and ‘The Gadget’ from my Design paper. He was captivated by the possibility of creating an idiosyncratic real-life model of an intangible theory. It seemed relevant to our evolving pedagogy. I talked Steve through the self-assessment tools I had developed emphasising the importance of students owning the experience and together we have built a process our learners have agreed on and which we continue to develop. 

Randomly selected groups share their individual leadership theories. This might traverse democratic, heliotropic, transactional, reward-based, trait and transformational theories, the intellectual equivalent of sharing kai. The need to verbally articulate means learners must understand their theories, and their theories in practice, and engage with them profoundly.

Each identifies the quality they most associate with their preferred theory. These singular qualities become the key elements of the new theory. Initially, learners analyse and willingly share their data, but soon appreciate the need to synthesize to move to the next stage.

The group names its new theory and designs a practical model demonstrating what the theory looks like. Through this, learners come to grips with creative visualisation.
The presentation process covers two days giving learner’s time to share findings which are often highly complex. The process, the outcome, and broader societal implications are interrogated in depth. A photographic record is shared to encourage additional dialogue, an exchange that continues beyond the end of the paper.
Each group submits a written exegesis. This replicates the artefact/exegesis model offering a tantalising precursor to post-graduate study.

A 96% SPEQ satisfaction rate suggests we’re on the right track, with engagement in ‘self-assessment’ highly valued. WIL mentors and students frequently report how happy they are with the long-term effects of this deep engagement with critical thinking. (K4)

Steve and I create environments that mitigate against fear and power and which encourage ‘trading beyond experience’. We commit to marking what learners produce against parameters they engage with, define and endorse. 

The more Steve and I engage the better we comprehend because no two cohorts are ever the same. 

Steve and I are increasingly involved in workshops focusing on innovation where we do exercise influence. We recently presented at two learning symposia with two conferences to come and there is considerable interest in our work. Impact is hard to measure from the bottom of the educational hierarchy where we choose to function because ‘influence’ tends to travel the other way. We plant seeds that take time to grow and which require nurture and courage. Ultimately, we still fight a system that values what it can measure rather than the intangibles that make learning such a chuckling, weeping, corporeal joy.