One of the key components to team success is the evaluation process.  Without it neither individual nor collective progress can be measured nor made.  Leaders must know what assets are at their disposal to meet each challenge (Gueldenzoph & May, 2006).  These assets certainly include software and hardware, but the most important asset at his disposal is the staff working with him to assess problems and develop and implement solutions to the challenges facing the school or district (Gueldenzoph & May, 2006).

The team leader must know how effective his team is in the execution of their individual and collective responsibilities.  To this end numerous models have been developed to help the leader evaluate and rank individuals within the team based on defined sets of criteria.  Some of these include Employee Performance Mapping, Management by Objectives (MBO) and Professional Growth Plans (PGPs) (Hall, 2008).  Each focuses on a different line of attack as it pertains to the individual’s contribution to the team’s goals(Myers et al, 2007).

To be sure, the leader must build up leaders from with the ranks of his team.  IN the end he is accountable for the growth of individuals in his team.  He must also be clear about his expectations and his team’s performance standards.  Finally, the leader takes on the role of working to assure each team member has a shot at achieving success (Hall, 2008).

Regardless of the model used to assess team members, each member must be aware of the process and expectations prior to the assessment process.  This way, the leader is better assured of the team members’ best work for the evaluation process (Hall, 2008).

Schools, traditionally, do a poor job of evaluating teachers.  Typically, the evaluator sits in on one lesson and gives a “whole year” evaluation based on twenty minutes of time spent in the classroom.  This is certainly not the best means of determining individual or collective success.  New processes are being implemented which take a broader look at individual and collective achievement by instructors (Myers et al, 2007).

The broader the perspective, the better the end product.

References:

Gueldenzoph, L. & May, G. (2006) The Effect of Social Style on Peer Evaluation Ratings in Project Teams. The Journal of Business Communication. 43. (1). P 4

Hall, D. (2008) The technology director’s guide to leadership: the power of great questions. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education

Myers, N., Paiement, C. Feltz, D. (2007) Regressing Team Performance on Collective Efficacy: Considerations of Temporal Proximity and Concordance. Measurement in Physical Education & Exercise Science. 11. (1). P 1

Although there are numerous schools of thought concerning organizational development, Hall (2008) describes four distinct phases that technology teams go through they are, forming, storming, norming and performing.  This structure is helpful when leading any group of educational technology leaders.  Careful attention to the dynamics at work within the team will help the implementation of the technology at the administrative and classroom level.

The first stage Hall (2008) describes is the forming stage.  Here the team is assembled and undergoes a kind of honeymoon in which they enjoy the excitement of all things new and shiny.  Members seldom question ideas and strategies.  Even the strongest members of the team appear to be complaisant in all matters.

Next the team may encounter a problematic phase.  Hall (2008) calls this the storming phase.  Here the comfort of the forming stage gives way to such comfort among the team members that they develop cliques and alliances which are disruptive of the group dynamic.  This phase of the organization may be looked back upon as “the good old days,” but as it the team is enduring it, there is a lot of contention and division.  During this phase, even the most driven members of the team produce little to nothing and fail to meet deadlines and individual goals.  For the sake of the team and the larger objectives the team is charged to develop, it is best to get through the storming phase as quickly as possible and with as little time and resources wasted in the process(Wilpert, 1995).

Following the storming phase, teams will often encounter the norming phase.  Here, the leader brings the team together to define for and with them the guidelines for the creation and advancement of the team’s culture.  All members of the team are encouraged to participate in the creation of these norms, thereby making them a point of shared ownership.  This shared ownership builds cooperation among the team members and tends to break down walls that may have grown among the team.  Although this process is often formal, it may be very informal in nature.  This process develops individual accountability that allows the team to work together toward common goals(Wilpert, 1995).

Once the team comes through the previous stages, the real work can be done.  This last stage is called the performing stage.  Individual members, being held to the standards that bind all members, work toward the common goals of the team individually and collectively.  High volumes of quality work will flow from team members ahead of schedule.  This is the goal of any team, but care must be taken by the team leader to keep the team from regressing into earlier stages(Wilpert, 1995).

Hall (2008) points out “blinders” which prevent the team from thinking ahead to avoid future problems.  Among these are, stringent deadlines, tight budget constraints, lack of authority by the team or its members, lack of understanding by the team or its members, technical limitations, and failure of the team or its members to consider what impediments lie just ahead.

References:

Hall, D. (2008) The technology director’s guide to leadership: the power of great questions. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education

Wilpert, B. (1995) Organizational Behavior. Annual Review of Psychology. 46. P 59

When an organization considers a change that will mark a change in the schema, the technology leader must keep a few key concepts in mind.  These concepts include the decision to become an instructional partner with the students’ educational stakeholders; Determining to be at the table whenever and wherever discussion is had about the use or exclusion of educational technology; Knowing when the timing is right to make the big leap into greater technological application by both students and teachers; and, live on the precipice(Hall, 2008).  That is, continue to explore applications and hardware that will have an impact on the ever-changing nature of academics.

Some see the educational technology staff as supplementary and external to the daily well-functioning classroom.  In reality, the ed tech staff of any institution should play a closer part to the beneficial changes teachers, administrators and students, look for in a healthy school environment(Banoglu, 2011).  Curriculum services is the traditional source of new and interesting ideas for instructional materials.  Much of the best changes in curriculum development have, however grown from outside of this realm and, in recent years, reflect a more open proves that increasingly includes ed tech in the idea development aspects of curriculum development.  The bottom line is that the educational technology leader must understand what is going on in the school and advance ideas that will increase understanding by the students L&A, 2004).

The educational technology staff is no longer the geeks in the converted broom closet filled with spare computer parts and wires.  They are a powerful component of the educational improvement apparatus.  Hall (2008) describes this as having a place at the table.

The greatest single support the good ed tech leader can provide an education team is assistance in the decision of exactly when to make new technological changes.  Hall (2008) points out a number of questions which, in total, point toward more economic considerations.  The basic questions of economics are interwoven into the process here – Do I need it? And can I afford it? Become prime considerations guiding the final leap into the new technology.  Ultimately, the net impact of the decision must be determined and entered into the process concerning the timing of it all (Hall, 2008).

This all takes time to get right.  Getting these decisions right in a way that fits all of the variables is a tricky business.  It is best done slowly and with much discussion and consideration among all of the concerned parties (Hall, 2008).

References:

Banoglu, K. (2011). School principals’ technology leadership competency and technology coordinatorship.  Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri. 11(1). 208-220.

Hall, D. (2008) The technology director’s guide to leadership: the power of great questions. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education

Editor (2004) Leadership & Advocacy. The Journal. 31(12). 40.