Welcome to the Leadership Lab
This is the space where our asynchronous discussions will be taking place. We will post ideas, provocation and resources here and expect that you respond with your thoughts and contributions to push our thinking forward.
The late, great, Sir Ken Robinson quotation below is a great place for us to start.
(1) Please read the quotation
(2) Think about this quotation in the context your current role in your organization.
(3) Then respond to the quotation with what you think “climate control” means. OR what you think “a climate of possibility” means
@gnichols What a great way to start the lab! Let’s get this party started! @tfaucher @gvogt
Ken Robinson’s quote captures a fundamental tension in leadership, particularly in educational contexts, between the traditional model of “command and control” and a more modern, facilitative approach he calls “climate control.” The command-and-control model is built on authority, where leaders dictate, direct, and oversee every aspect of a system, ensuring compliance through rules and regulations. This approach creates a hierarchical dynamic in which creativity and individual agency can be stifled. In contrast, Robinson advocates for climate control, where the leader’s role is to foster an environment that encourages exploration, innovation, and growth. Here, the leader is more of a facilitator who shapes the conditions for success, trusting those within the system to take initiative and develop independently. The tension emerges because shifting from strict control to a climate of possibility introduces uncertainty—moving away from predictable outcomes requires trust that a more open, creative atmosphere will yield meaningful and innovative results. It’s a balancing act between creating structures that provide stability and accountability, while also allowing enough freedom for creativity to flourish. This tension is particularly relevant to leaders who must navigate the fine line between enforcing necessary standards and fostering a vibrant culture where new ideas can thrive. In educational leadership, this translates into balancing the need for oversight with the need to create space for teachers and students to take ownership of their learning and teaching processes.
Some like it hot, some like it cold. How do we create conditions for all, and what adjustments need to be made when we scale a culture for a larger size group?
When should it be cold and we make sure people have access to jackets?
When should it be hot and people feel comfortable taking their jackets off?
When is it helpful to target the middle, or the lowest common denominator? When is that unhelpful?
@gnichols @gvogt @jmedved Thanks Garth for kicking us off! I 100% like the idea of leadership being on the side of climate control vs command and control and I could not agree with Justin’s thoughts more. Justin, I like your shift to using the word facilitator – I think that aligns better with how I see leadership as well. Even when it comes to climate, aka culture, there are many factors that if we seek to control them it could backfire. I agree with your point around how there is often tension between standards and creative freedom, innovation, and growth. I see it as a constant push and pull and the school leader knows when it is time to push one thing and pull back on another- when everything is important, nothing is! I think of it more as a climate caretaker- as educational leaders the climate of our team, whatever the size, is truly in our care to nurture and support. In this space, tension can also arise when trying to navigate change management at a pace that will have an impact on student learning, but not create burnout. It is such a delicate and fine line and I think as you pointed out Justin, creating space for students and educators to have a voice and own their space in this process is kep to walking that line smoothly.
The climate of an educational institution would be what my students and children refer to as ‘vibes’. It includes the tangibles such as the values, beliefs and behaviours that shape how people experience the environment of the institution; and the intangibles related to how people feel under the current conditions; whether they are supported, have the appropriate autonomy and are seen and valued as individuals. Climate control strikes me as a specific structural management of the environment; articulating the rules of engagement for interactions, including the means of addressing conflict; the strategies to ensure a balance of risk management vs. innovation, and messy learning vs. accountable measurable goals. A climate of possibility would feel positive to me, or at least net positive. There would be evidence of hope, energy, curiosity and creativity—a sense that one could make something happen, run with an idea, try out something new and possibly be allowed to fail without recrimination or embarrassment. A climate of possibility embraces the idea that institutions are dynamic and experimentation is expected without the anvil of tradition or institutional reputation weighing down desirable progress. Leading from behind can create an exciting climate of possibility, but the leader must also model the behaviours they seek from their staff and students. I believe there are a few essentials that school leaders must display at all times: integrity, real empathy and brave action when required, trust in those you delegate to, and effective, consistent and clear communication to all members of the institution.
The essence of educational leadership goes beyond merely guiding or managing. It’s about creating an environment that encourages team members to grow, collaborate, and thrive—moving from a traditional “command and control” model to one rooted in inspiration and empowerment. True leaders recognize that their role is not about positional authority or being the most knowledgeable in the room. Instead, it’s about fostering a shared purpose, nurturing each individual’s potential, and building a climate where everyone feels their contributions matter. By shifting focus to team efficacy, leaders can empower others to become subject experts, decision-makers, and contributors. This approach creates a culture of collective achievement, where the leader steps back, enabling team members to shine.
@jmedved @gnichols @adamcaplan @tfaucher @gvogt Testing this commenting email traigger
@gnichols @jmedved @tfaucher
Thanks for this Garth! I appreciate the language offered by Ken Robinson, just as I’m excited by this level of discussion!
As Justin exclaims, this dichotomy of leadership approaches begins to describe the tension present in, well… everything? As I read the comments and our relative agreement on a balanced approach – in which educators feel safe and supported within clear structures and systems to be bold and creative in their practice – it is holding a mirror up to the models and expectations we maintain for our students. Indeed, Robinson is speaking specifically to education, and so it’s worth considering the perhaps special and particular responsibility of leadership within a school. By definition, learning can only occur when we are extended beyond what we know. There is risk, challenge and discomfort in learning. All at once, students must feel challenged, inspired and supported. As educators we understand how nuanced this is – at least as nuanced as each individual student – as we create just the right conditions to ensure learning. We are required to continually push beyond ourselves, challenging our own biases. Most powerfully, we are continually modelling learning for our students. Why should we expect anything less of ourselves as leaders?
As we connect to ourselves as leaders, continue refining our purpose, developing leadership skills, perspectives and knowledge, let’s also be sure we’re building backwards from the special responsibility of a school. Let’s be sure we’re building backwards from the ideas of learning and growth. Through the ways in which we lead, how are we ensuring and enhancing the care and learning of all? Ensuring, as Robin says, that we are modelling “the behaviours (we) seek from students and staff”, but also that they reflect a “climate of possibility,” better ensuring learning? If we can clearly define learning, then we are better positioned to understand the conditions that ensure it and the leadership values that support it.
Conversely, if traditional models work to control climate, then they may also undermine learning and growth. The idea of control may also reflect the absence of humility, courage, truth, creativity, curiousity, empathy… I’m not certain learning and growth can occur within such a vacuum.
I’m struck my Graham’s last comment that, “Conversely, if traditional models work to control climate, then they may also undermine learning and growth. The idea of control may also reflect the absence of humility, courage, truth, creativity, curiousity, empathy… I’m not certain learning and growth can occur within such a vacuum.” While I understand Robinson’s intention, I’m not sure that “Climate Control” is the best term for what we as leaders should strive for. Is climate something that we can truly control? Or is it something that we can only guide and manage? I far prefer Tracy’s idea of a climate caretaker; perhaps our goal as leaders should be to model positive climate and to support those we lead as they weather storms. If we do this, we can hope to build trust, independence, confidence, and resilience in the people that we work with.
I love this quote, and thinking about the climate of possibility. At the moment, in my various roles, I like the idea of creating a climate where people feel encouraged to think “outside the box.” This is a climate where risk taking is encouraged, reflection is a habit, and imagination is inspired.
As an English teacher, this is part of my daily practice. I think if you create a safe space to imagine and wonder, you open up a world of possibility and of new ideas.
In my work with student leaders, opening up opportunities to use our imaginations has lead to wonderful initiatives that create camaraderie, fun, and school spirit.
I imagine that climate control is making sure that no one feels shut down or uninspired (too cold) OR that theirs are the only ideas that matter (too hot).
Just thinking some thoughts :).
In my current role, I oversee university applications, where character is becoming increasingly important I have also been tasked to reflect on how to assess and implement character education effectively.
I was recently contemplating Sir Ken Robinson’s concept of fostering a “climate of possibility” in education alongside Rutger Bregman’s work in his book Humankind. Bregman presents a hopeful model for humanity’s future by debunking many pessimistic theories about human relationships. His research emphasizes empathy, trust, and community-building—particularly through the power of friendships—as key drivers of innovation, work ethic, and human flourishing. If you haven’t yet read his book, I highly recommend it for its fascinating and inspirational perspective.
Bregman’s research-backed vision aligns powerfully with Robinson’s larger emphasis on nurturing individual creativity in educational settings. This intersection has led me to consider how influencing students’ character begins with influencing the character of their mentors—our fellow faculty members.
In leadership, if we truly believe that students possess inherent creativity to be cultivated and that they can thrive through empathy, trust, and community-building, then we must ask: how can we foster these essential principles among our faculty?
As Robin so aptly stated earlier in the responses, “I believe there are a few essentials that school leaders must display at all times: integrity, real empathy and brave action when required, trust in those you delegate to, and effective, consistent, and clear communication to all members of the institution.”
I wonder: to what extent can empathy, brave action, trust, creativity, and community-building form the foundation of a climate of possibility? And how might we balance these with the necessary structures that exist so that we do not stifle innovation, but support these roots of flourishing and growth?