Due: 22nd August
He maurea kai whiria!
Ignore small matters and direct effort toward important projects.
Module 10 is brought to you by Serena Cooper and Aaron Ironside. This half-hour interview on Consensus Building has some really great tips for inclusive participation that engages and empowers a group.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEftUh3uZQ&t=15s
Provocation:
Consider a time when consensus was gained over an important decision. What did the leader do to gather and process divergent points of view? Please share your thoughts in 150 words or less.
16 Responses
Reviewing our Behaviour policy and processes:
Respecting the viewpoint of others:
The leader gathered all the stakeholders together because everyone had different views and opinions. E.g. some didn’t want to make any changes to the documents because we’d been using them for years and thought they were fit for purpose. Others wanted to make changes to the format of the documents and make reporting of incidents and following of processes simpler for teachers.
Collaboration: To draw on everybody’s expertise and make them feel heard.
Everyone was invited to share their thoughts, suggestions and knowledge. Staff listened respectfully and thoughtfully to each other’s’ viewpoints. In this way, everyone gained a better insight of what needed to be done and why it would be beneficial to the school to make changes to our policy and processes. This collaborative process enabled colleagues to see the need for change and embrace the process of change. Adopting the collaborative approach in this instance, meant the team didn’t have to engage in a win – lose situation.
Our Literacy Lead Team have recently introduced a new Structured Literacy approach, knowing it could be challenging to change from an existing system. We started by speaking with the staff member we thought might be the most resistant to change. This allowed us to address concerns early and make them feel heard, which helped prevent future pushback and eased the team into the idea.
We also asked one of our well-respected literacy leaders to dive deep into the new approach and present it to the team. By having someone trusted take the lead, it gave credibility to the change and made other staff members more open to considering it. Their detailed examples really helped others see how this shift could benefit our students.
Workshops were held to explain the research behind the new approach, and we piloted it with a small group to give staff firsthand experience. Seeing the new system in action reassured the team and showed them how it could improve student outcomes, particularly for oral language development. This practical exposure went a long way in winning over the more skeptical team members.
We also made sure to gather feedback regularly, which allowed us to make small adjustments based on staff input. This showed everyone that their thoughts and concerns mattered, helping to build trust and ensure that they felt included in the process.
As a side unit to my role I am in charge of a data management team. Recently, I reached a consensus within this unit as we had to figure out how to securely move data from our school’s KAMAR database to an external format that everyone could use. We needed to structure the data in a way that worked for multiple uses without making the files too massive. Naturally, there were different opinions on what data was necessary and how it should be organized.
To get everyone on the same page, I made sure each person could explain their use case, and I took notes on what data they needed. Then, I looked for overlaps and grouped similar needs together so they could work out the details. In the end, we created a few shared data outputs instead of a unique one for everyone. This cut down on duplicate data and made the whole process more efficient. Now, everyone has what they need, and the data is much easier to handle.
We are in the process of rewriting our school vision with our leadership team (management and team leaders) who have been at the school for anytime between 2 – 20 years. With such a range of investment in the current, long-standing vision, weighed against the need for change, building a consensus on where to next has been challenging.
Our management team, led by our Principal, has ensured this has been done with patience. Multiple opportunities for reflection have been provided, with space to share & listen. The topic has been revisited numerous times with feedback sought from all leaders. We have acted on feedback from our leaders and have often included language/ideas that we did not necessarily agree with, but were prioritised by our team. Providing space, time, and a willingness to be flexible is assisting us in crafting a genuine school vision that is a product of numerous ideas & people.
Our Senior Leadership Team (SLT) is currently planning to change the leadership structure of our school from physical syndicates (base school, senior school, and satellites) to some type of across-school syndicates. This is in response to an independent whole school survey that revealed weak trust in SLT, with a lack of cohesion across the school identified as a key area of concern. To address this, the principal created a priority gate with three key questions, which proved helpful in the initial discussion phase by filtering out ideas that wouldn’t lead to the desired change. Only the SLT team was involved in these early conversations. The next step is to present the idea to teachers, inviting their thoughts on the positives and concerns. I’m wondering if it would have been more beneficial to involve teachers from the start, given that they are key stakeholders, or if it’s more effective for the SLT to present a proposed verdict first.
A few years ago, we decided to use Schoology as a learning management system. Initially, the LMS was used as a digital library that contained all the course material students used. The course material was curated into individual courses students signed up for at the start of the year, semester or term. As our teachers crafted their planning to align with the UBD principles and our use and understanding of the infrastructure of Schoology grew, we started using the Gradebook more effectively. After a lot of professional development and experimentation, we decided to transition away from the traditional paper-based report. This decision was a consensus decision because we had ongoing and extensive discussions about the impact on our pedagogy and how the “continuous” reporting model would benefit our students. The consensus-making process was not a single event in a staff meeting but an extended process of education and collaboration. The process was led from the front but there was full engagement every step of the way. The process benefitted both our students and the staff. For our staff, there are no more weekends and all-nighters doing report writing. For our students and their families, the online gradebook gives them the finger on the pulse of what is happening in real-time. Course corrections and interventions can occur when needed.
Last year the teaching staff asked me to represent them at a PTA meeting to ask them to reconsider a decision they had made to purchase playground equipment that we deemed would be a hazard. The staff and Board of Trustees gave a list of options they would prefer.
A Principal from another school who experienced an awful accident wrote a statement for the PTA which I read out. The meeting was extremely emotional, lots of tears and disappointment, but I remained calm and showed empathy.
It became apparent through actively listening that the members of the PTA wanted to leave a legacy at the school (that was their need) and we were able to talk through some other options of how to make that happen. They decided in the end to contribute to our turf fundraising which was a decision that all stakeholders were happy about.
For the first time in my current school, our principal has gained consensus from the teaching staff to get feedback and direction on current Professional Development. The purpose of this was to find out what PD has and hasn’t worked over the past few years, the reason for lack of engagement and looking to 2025, gaining a better understanding of what the teaching staff felt was important in terms of PD with the current curriculum changes and behaviour problems across the school.
During the first two weeks of this term, the principal sat with every teaching staff member and used a variety of questions to get insight into individual thoughts on PD wants and needs. She then collated this information into main themes which she feedback to the Senior Leadership team, with pathway options for each of the PD themes. Team Leaders then took all this information back to their teams to discuss further and to then give feedback and rankings of the different PD pathways. The principal has since used the different teams feedback to present back to Senior Leadership and given us all time to go over what the feedback was and together will make a final decision in the coming weeks.
Even though we are yet to finalise and start the 2025 PD journey, already the staff have commented on how they have enjoyed being part of the decision making process and felt heard, which is a huge shift in how big decisions have been made in previous years.
Consider a time when consensus was gained over an important decision. What did the leader do to gather and process divergent points of view?
Since I took on my HOLA role 7+ years ago, I’ve found that, each time a new challenge arises and things need to change, I’ve become more confident and adept at building consensus within the team. I think this shows how I’ve built relationships, gained trust, and helped shape a culture of collaboration and support. One of our focuses as a team this year has been to find ways to work smarter, not harder. For example, as we complete an assessment with a year level, we take time as a group to reflect on how it went, and I invite suggestions on how we could do things differently next time. We’re looking for ways to use time more efficiently, to reduce instances of AI use, to ensure consistency across classes, to improve student achievement. etc. People were quite passive in these discussions to begin with, but as the year has gone on, I’ve had more and more contributions and ideas, which has made finding solutions a lot easier. This has also led to people feeling heard and valued, which reinforces that culture of collaboration and, in turn, makes consensus building much more achievable.
When I reflect on my leadership approach to introducing a new course into the Year 11 mix, I realise that while the steps I took to gain consensus among the team were well-intentioned, they were not completely successful. The first step I took was to have a conversation with the most challenging member of the group before the formal meeting. This preemptive discussion was empowering for both of us, as it allowed me to inform them of the upcoming discussion, gave them the space to voice initial concerns, and provided insight into why they might oppose the decision. This step was crucial in setting a positive tone for the larger meeting.
During the meeting, I deliberately tried to create an open and inclusive environment where everyone felt their voice was heard. I used language such as, “Let’s go around the table and hear from each person—there’s no rush, so take your time to express your views. If there’s something you disagree with or feel strongly about, this is the space to bring it up so we can address it together.” I made it a point to actively listen to the different perspectives shared, without judgement or noticeable signs on my face or body language, ensuring that each member of the team felt respected and understood. After hearing from everyone, I summarised and reflected back the key points raised, which helped to ensure that there was a shared understanding of the issues at hand.
I then looked for areas of agreement and common ground, highlighting these to show that there were already elements we could build upon. From there, I proposed potential compromises or solutions that aimed to address the various concerns raised. I allowed the group to reflect and discuss further before moving towards a decision, understanding that thoughtful discussion is crucial in reaching a consensus.
In the end, while I balanced the need to hear all views with the goal of guiding the group towards a decision that most could support, the outcome was not what I had hoped for. The most difficult person bypassed me and went straight to the Headmaster, who ultimately overturned the decision. This experience taught me that consensus does not always lead to the desired outcome. However, the skills of facilitation and emotional intelligence were still essential in managing the process, ensuring that the decision was well-considered and broadly accepted by the team.
Consensus decision making is a way to reach agreement in a group, in our setting it is needed in the restructuring of leadership. “Seeds for change” has a diagram that can be used when conesus is needed.
Issue? Opening out. Exploring. Coming together. Decision
Using the above diagram and what Aaron in his interview said, these are the steps the leader needed to take to reach consensus in the group. With the curriculum refresh, new leadership is needed in phases rather than year levels, as well as expanding the leadership structure including other leadership roles for example the Maths Lead and Literacy Lead, as they both are working within our Kahui Ako as well.
When this new leadership structure was proposed it was explained to the team leaders first, getting their insight and their ideas. Giving them time to think it over, give more ideas and explore how it can work.
I especially paid attention to those who had different thoughts and ideas. Listening to what they raised and asked them to help me understand what they are thinking. I then explained the positive outcome to the school as a whole, taking into consideration what their thoughts were. I also explained what my intentions behind the proposed changes were, this helped to get everyone on the same page.
After this meeting it is important to get genuine feedback, asking someone I trust to give me honest feedback about how the meetings went. This becomes a helpful and not always a fun conversation. Sometimes the feedback showed that I could have done it better in some areas and this became my goals to work on.
After the discussions with the Team Leaders, it was shared with the staff. Creating opportunities for teachers to mull it over, have discussions and for the staff to see that we are all part of a team. Like Aaron said, playing the long game in order to win it together as a strong team where everyone is valued and strengths used to get there together. Being open and transparent, giving staff a voice helps build the team for the long haul.
Consider a time when consensus was gained over an important decision. What did the leader do to gather and process divergent points of view?
At our school, our leadership team gave all the staff an opportunity to have a say in how we would restructure our options program at school, which we refer to as Ako. In this program, children have different options to choose from whether to do a language option or an enrichment option. Previously, students could choose options offered across the whole school. This became problematic as teachers from different Mini schools (our school is divided into 4 Mini Schools) ended up with children from other Mini schools who they had no relationships with which in turn caused a lot of issues. Moreover, we had our Ako program over 3 terms for 2 blocks every week. Staff came together as a team and discussed the pros and cons of the “old” system. Then we had an opportunity to brainstorm how we could improve the Ako program and make it work for us. At the end of the discussions, the staff were able to come up with a new Ako program which ran for 1 block per week in Terms 2 and 3 and was run across Mini Schools instead of the whole school. In this way, teachers knew the students, they had a relationship with the students, they knew the students and they knew who to talk to in their own Mini Schools in case any problem/issue arose. The new system started this year and has worked really well for us. I also think that because the staff had a “buy in” to how the program would run, there was a greater sense of ownership and willingness to do the program now. Previously, we had teachers who loathed the options program and didnt feel like doing their options. Since the SLT opened it up for staff to restructure the program, this in turn created a safe space for everyone to share ideas and concerns. Also, staff felt that the SLT paid attention to different perspectives and thus helped us to find solutions. According to Aaron Ironside, the “buy in” is important for people who are invested in the particular issue- they need to be participating in the formation of the decision and thus making them feel “heard” and listened to instead of decisions being made for them. This is what happened for us for this particular issue.
Informed by staff voice we came to a consensus this year how we would structure our PLGs as a staff. We had some large new systems coming into play this year – new SMS (Kamar), new relational framework. We did some initial discussions towards the end of last year about how we might roll these out and then came back to this at the start of this year. Staff responded well as we had flexibility within our planning and they could see themselves in the planning ideas. They wanted smaller PLG groups working on one of the three annual goals, and a more specific focus on the action points of the goals – staff could choose an area of interest and link up with like minded team members. We have only managed to come to these smaller PLGs towards the end of term 2 as we have needed to work on the implementation and begin to embed on our systems changes.
Strategies from SLT have included MLT running our sessions around systems – power sharing – utilising expertise – growing MLT – empowerment. We are regularly doing pulse checks with our MLT – how are we going, how do we know/not know, are we ready for the next step.
Collaboratively we made the decision to shift focus together. As Aaron quotes in his session “Consensus is about a collaborative approach” – sometimes it is the whole group and sometimes a smaller group and “people want to see their contribution in the final plan”.
Leadership gave staff the opportunity to respond to some questions to reflect on the year by placing questions and paper around the room for staff to record their ideas on. One of the questions was ‘what didn’t go well this year?’ Something that was recorded a number of times was that the pressure and extra work that went into every language week was stressful. In the process of summarising the information that was gathered by the staff, the leadership team identified this as an area that needed change. A staff meeting was held where ideas were gathered as a brainstorm of how we could still acknowledge and celebrate the language weeks but in a smarter way. From the ideas that were gathered it was then discussed in the leadership team meeting. They came to a consensus to have two cultural days a year where the languages and cultures of the students at our school would be celebrated and taught. Parents were asked to get involved so that experts could come in and expose our students to a range of cultures in an authentic way, not only focusing on the language but the traditions, history, art, music, and social customs associated with it. Our cultural days have now become a highlight of Term 1 and Term 3. Because there was positive change related to the feedback and ideas that staff gave, they felt heard and there is now a greater sense of ownership and celebration of our cultural days from the staff.
A memorable instance of consensus building occurred when our school was about to engage in professional development around refining our mathematics approach as a school – which we called ‘Our Balance Maths Programme’. The leader facilitated a session at the beginning of the year where all staff members could record their thoughts and opinions at various stations around the room (which had specific prompts/post it notes etc), regardless of their role or seniority. After gathering all perspectives, she summarised the key points and brought the findings to our team leader meeting, where details were discussed further, and consensus was reached about the various aspects of what we consider to be a balanced maths programme. This process highlighted common ground and acknowledged differing opinions across the staff. From there, as a senior leadership team, we were able to refine and package the ideas from our staff into a clear guiding document, and this structure also provided the focus areas for professional development throughout the year. By fostering an environment of respect and inclusivity, the leader supported our team to reach a consensus that felt like a collective achievement, rather than a top-down decision. Now when we engage in PD around maths, or talk about our expectations as a school, teachers feel a greater sense of ownership in the direction as it was their input that helped guide the direction.
Two years ago, we identified an opportunity to restructure our school syndicates. There were two underlying factors that were behind the need for this type of decision being, (1) vast differences in the team sizes with some team leaders only having a small team while other team leaders were in charge of much larger teams and (2) the impending refreshed curriculum. As a SLT, we initially had an idea in mind of restructuring our teams, or rōpū, to align with the refreshed curriculum (Year 1-3, Year 4-6 & Year 7/8). This would address both underlying factors. As this was a decision that had a large impact on the existing team leaders it was very important to involve them in the consensus building process. Aligned with what was discussed in the video, it was important for this to be done thoroughly over a significant period of time in order for all parties to have time to reflect on and share their perspectives on the decision. By the end of the process, we reached a consensus where all parties felt heard and valued in the decision making.