Last day in Kansas!
(And yes, I made a “we’re not in Kansas anymore” joke when we made it to the airport in Missouri.)
Thursday was only a half day (due to flight constraints on our part), and if my lack of notes from Day 2 was an indication of my lack of engagement, my notes from the day represent a high degree of authentic engagement. I have more notes from three hours of day three than all seven hours of day two. I attribute this to two major factors: Knight was back on his A game as a presenter and he was delivering content that was very new to me on a philosophical and theoretical level. All the issues from day two: resolved.
Knight’s focus for the day was quality communication and he busted right out of the gate with theory and research. Well… not quite right out of the gate. There was a forty minute question and review time, but compared to the extremely lengthy review from day two I hardly noticed and it felt like he was busting right out of the gate.
Knight began with a potentially controversial claim: we have a communication crisis. To me this immediately smacked of a generational bias: Knight’s boomer stodginess against my millennial early adoption of new technology. I wanted him to defend himself. I wanted justification for such an audacious claim. I got what I wanted. Knight (slightly) backed off his initially provocative ledge into a more nuanced position, recognizing that he’d played a part to get people to pay attention. He does not discount the usefulness of Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of communication that do not require people to be face to face, however he did maintain that the ultimate form of communication is face to face, one on one, in person.
It is important that we interact personally in order to catch all of the nuance of nonverbal communication. Technology has to be seen as an additional tool, not a replacement for quality discussion. In my work as a coach the vast majority of my interactions are face to face, and so developing my skill in reading non-verbal queues, effective listening, and building trust are extremely helpful. Communication is also, of course, not limited to my work and as such I was able to build authentic connections and meaning throughout the day as Knight worked through his “9 Strategies for Communication” which are as follows:
- Take the Partnership Approach (See Day 1)
- Listen. Seriously… listen.
- Create connection between yourself and others.
- Build Trust (This was the last one we were able to see due to leaving early.)
- Find Common Ground
- Control Destructive Emotions
- Witness the Good
- Ask Good Questions
Take the Partnership Approach really boils down to drinking the Kool-Aid from day one, and I’m willing to accept that. This is primarily because the Partnership Approach was presented as a fundamental set of beliefs governing interactions between people that extends beyond my work as a coach. (For more on my thoughts on this read my summary of Day 1.)
The segment on listening was unexpectedly powerful for me. I’m not the best listener ever. I’m really good at thinking about a response while other people are talking, I’m very good at interrupting, and I’m a highly skilled self-focuser. None of this helps listening as it turns out. Knight outlined some very simple steps to quality listening which essentially boil down to “shut up, externally and internally, and pay attention to the other person.” Then he made us practice, and that was where he got me on board. Quality listening takes conscious expenditure of energy and Knight had us deliberately listen to a partner for three minutes. I was immediately aware of how often I interrupt and talk over other people. This is a huge area of growth for me personally and professionally and a listening goal is going to go right up with the video goal from the first day.
The connection segment was fairly brief and it focused primarily on summarizing Gottman’s work around relationships and marriage. This was helpful in that it provides a clear language for how people connect, or fail to connected. Gottman claims that people make a bid for connection in a variety of ways ranging from the ostentatious (Let’s take the credit card and go nuts!) to the more mundane (Would you like a cup of coffee?) These bids represent a hope of connection from one person to another and how the other person responded to the bid is extraordinarily important component in whether or not those two people will connect.
This concept immediately shifted my entire mindset on what it means to make a connection and I instantly decontextualized a plethora of connections in my life be they deep, superficial, nonexistent, or stillborn. I imaged how the bid was presented and received and quickly came to terms with many issues that had been presenting difficulty. Gottman explains that people react to a bid in one of three ways:
- They turn toward the bid: This is an acceptance of the bid, and acknowledges that the bid has value and there is a shared interest. This leads to positive connections very smoothly and efficiently.
- They turn against the bid: This is when someone directly opposes the bid. This acknowledges that a bid has been presented, but makes it clear that the bid was an incorrect method of approach to a connection. This does not necessarily shut the door to future bids. Sarcasm can very easily be misinterpreted as turning against a bid.
- The third option is that a recipient may turn away from a bid, effectively ignoring the bidder. This is the most damaging for the relationship because the recipient does not even acknowledge that a bid has been made and the bidder is left feeling immediately devalued. Turning away from a bid is particularly insidious because it can happen inadvertently when a recipient is truly unaware that a bid has been made.
This was just enough of Gottman’s work that I feel equipped to leverage the language in my personal and professional work, and I am still interested in investigating it further to deepen my understanding. I see this work on connection playing a massive role in my life.
The last piece I was present for was the segment on building trust. The whole thing can be summarized by Knight’s equation for trust below:
Essentially the factors on the top of the equation help increase people’s trust in you while self-focus serves to diminish trust. This section was very straightforward and served to give names to many of the thoughts I already had around trust and building trust in the teachers I work with.
The three days of Jim Knight’s Instructional Coaching Conference deeply highlighted the importance of maintaining basics of quality education throughout a session. Day 1 had everything I needed: community building, challenge, relevance, and choice. When I lost relevancy and challenge in day 2, Knight lost me as a participant. When he added them back on the third day, I was immediately reenergized and cognitively engaged. Despite the difficulties of the second day, I have a strong collection of thoughts, methods, and theories to leverage in my work with novice teachers. I know that I will be a better coach as a result of these last three days, largely, thought not exclusively, because I can now give name and justification to many of the moves I make. As an added bonus I can take many of these techniques and theories and integrate them positively into my personal life.
Indie Rock Local Music Scavenger Hunt Wrap-Up:
I want to begin by giving huge props to Taryn at Love Garden. She really outdid herself with the recommendations and I’m leaving with a very positive view of the Lawrence music scene. Instead of linking just a couple more bands, I’ve opted to list everything I left with in no particular order or classification. Happy hunting.
- Y(our) Fri(end) – Taryn’s band that I linked on day 1.
- The Noise FM – garage rock sounds with higher than garage production values.
- Heartscape Landbreak – intellectual, somewhat meditative, very cerebral art rock.
- Hospital Ships – some of the same guys as above, much more accessible and straight ahead indie rock
- Cowboy Indian Bear – Should be named Bear Ninja Cowboy. Very ethereal, harmonized vocals over a variety of song structures. Mellow.
- The ACB’s – Extremely accessible indie-pop. Un-complex and very fun.
- Fourth of July – Lo Fi mid-tempo indie rock. They have a good beat and you can dance awkwardly like all the other hipsters.
- Olassa – Straight ahead, stripped down, country in the spirit of Emmylou Harris or Allison Krauss. Lovely.
- Truckstop Honeymoon – Old fashioned bluegrass, most of the time, with contemporary lyrics. Extremely fun.
- Quiet Corral – Lawrence’s answer to Mumford and Sons. Accessible, listenable, excellent.
Holy Bonus Tracks Batman! (Love Garden was sold out of their records but they have bandcamp pages.)
- Bloodbirds – Punk rock. What… you want more? Ok… it’s fast, loud, and really good. Happy?
- Müscle Wörship – More punk rock with a better band name.