Here is her testimony to the President’s Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

Watch Carolyn’s testimony (her remarks begin at 36:25 and end at 46:34 on the YouTube video).

He took complete responsibility for his actions. He didn’t say “mistakes were made” as many do, as if some grand anonymous force out there had made him sleep around.

He didn’t try to parse his way out of it as in “I never had sex with that woman.” He didn’t blame others, except for his brief tongue lashing of the paparazzi (and who could blame his for that?)He didn’t wreck a perfectly clear apology with endless paragraphs of gibberish (I think leaders use this tactic to try to bore their audiences into forgiveness.) But what he did was continually reminded us that he was responsible.

This won’t put it all behind him and he obviously knows that, but it could be a significant turning point in rebuilding the public’s trust in him as a role model.If he were a political or business leader, I might have advised him to have said what he said months ago. But he’s not running a company or a country, so his timing was perfect.

She was hired to bring about change in a troubled school system.  Leading change can be tough in most organizations, but in DC Schools it can be an especially tough assignment. Many years ago, as part of a university consortium team, I did some consulting in DC schools. I found entrenched bureaucracy and systems that made it hard for teachers and administrators to do their jobs. I also found many talented and dedicated professionals –teachers and administrators — trying hard to make life better for the children they served. I worked with lots of people who were eager to find ways to make things better.

Even though many agree that some significant problems have lessened (e.g. less violence and crime in schools, greater availability of books and other educational materials, improvement in test scores,) the Chancellor’s approval ratings plummet.

And you could almost predict that her approval ratings might waver. She has had the courage to take on strong opponents. For example, she proposed raising teacher salaries but at the cost of less job-security. In other words, if you didn’t cut it as teacher, you’d be gone. As you might imagine, the Washington Teachers Union (WTU) was against this, but she received praise nationally from educational reform advocates. (According  to the Washington Post, contract talks with the teachers’ union “have sputtered since late 2007.)

In some instances, a good leader will polarize. It can go with the territory. But, I think her problem is bigger than that. She seems to seek out controversy. Either that, or she may be oblivious to the impact her words and actions can have. For example, last month she casually mentioned that some of the 266 laid-off teachers “had had sex with children.” After a furor broke over this remark, she said that one of those teachers had been accused of sexual misconduct.

I have a few modest suggestions:

Chancellor Rhee, stay strong. The DC school system is one of the worst in the nation. It needs reform. That’s why you were hired.

You appear arrogant. You may not be arrogant, but you come across that way. Through media reports, you appear to be one of those leaders who thinks he or she is “smartest guys in the room.” And you may be — but broadcasting that is not a particularly good way to build support. Find someone you trust who has the courage to say the emperor has no clothes on. This person could be invaluable to your success. He or she may pull at your sleeve the instant before you say something that you would regret the moment it came out of your mouth.

Go out of your way to build alliances. Most of us want the schools to succeed. Parents, teachers, administrators, politicians, and just-plain-citizens want DC Schools to be a great school system. Lots of people want to be in your corner. Here’s one thing you could do. The D.C. Council complains that you don’t comply with requests for information.   If the DC Council wants information, give it to them and ask if that’s what they were looking for. If they say no, then get them what they need. There seem to be many places where you should diligently purpose common interests. I know this will be hard, but I believe it will be worth it. For extra credit, you might try to find that common ground with the teachers’ union.

Be careful when you speak. As a nationally known public figure, you cannot afford off-the-cuff remarks. You just can’t. That’s why you might benefit from that kid in the Emperor’s New Clothes.

I want you to succeed. I truly do. I wish you well.

The problem is that Presidents, for as long as I can remember, have delivered veritable shopping lists of things of things they want to accomplish over the coming year. There is usually something in the list for everyone. “And for little Billy, a new bicycle.”  State of the Union night is the one night of the year that insomniacs can get a good night’s sleep. Just turn on the TV and let the President (any president) lull you into dreamland.

As a leader of change, listen to the speech tonight and see if it grabs you and makes you want to do something (other than reaching for the remote.) Corporate leaders, like Presidents, cover too many things when they are trying to influence their audiences. The ancient Roman orator, Cato the Censor, said, “Stick to the point and the words will take care of themselves.” And, you’ll note that Cato said point – not points.

1. Lack of local knowledge. The need to understand the complexities and uniqueness of the culture you want to help.

2. One-dimensional victim-centric view of impacted populations.

3. Lack of respect for local economic systems.

4. Lack of appreciation for the importance of politcal power. he suggests looking for organizations that understand the political forces in the country.

4. Lack of commitment.  Focusing on just the immediate disaster and leaving during the rebuilding process.

Other posts warn people to avoid just going to the country thinking they can help, or from sending their own “care” packages. They claim that these just clog the ports and don’t take into account the transportation and other logistical challenges of getting these donations to people.

So, what does this have to do with change management, you might ask.  You can try to keep things quiet, under wraps, etc. but people will find a way to let others know what’s up even in the most oppresive environments.

The US government should not be running GM. While the government can be capable of managing large programs effectively, running an auto company is not among them.

This is a good intention gone bad. While keeping General Motors afloat is a worthy goal, the plan won’t get us there.

You’ve got to ask yourself what’s really changed as a result of the bankruptcy. Same leaders at GM, but with one huge change: government guys now sit in the executive suite. This doesn’t give me confidence. While GM has made some good decisions and developed some successful products in recent years, overall they were in a death spiral. And this descent occurred while people who actually knew something about cars ran the company. Put bureaucrats in charge who have no experience running an auto company, and who may have a social agenda of wanting to get more fuel efficient cars on the roads, you get a recipe for a company that will not be able to respond quickly to the needs of the marketplace. GM has never been nimble, and governments (by design) are less-than-nimble.Strike one. And you can’t build cars based on an environmental philosophy with the hope that people will buy what you are selling. Sadly, that doesn’t work. (Once gas prices started dropping last year, consumers had a renewed interest in bigger cars. Governments should set standards and companies should decide how to best sell what they’ve got to sell given those standards. You can’t very well mix the two.Strike two.

As Yogi Berra, said, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.” Let’s hope that wiser heads prevail before strike three is called.

Tell me I’m wrong about all this, because I would love to be wrong on this one.

I am still amazed at how infrequently organizational changes take context into account when they plan a major change. It’s like the idea itself – we’ll cut costs, we’ll move into new markets, we’ll introduce a new product, etc. – is so compelling that our brains don’t have room to even consider tough questions about the overall business/cultural environment. In my book, Why Don’t You Want What I Want?, I argue that considering the context is one of the most important things we should do.

And it’s hard to find good examples of organizations that do a great job of this. I found one in this morning’s The Washington Post. How Gays Won a Marriage Victory tells how activists prepared for and won the case that allows gay marriage. A few points:

Activists worked out of the spotlight.
They carefully screen couples to find the best candidates to be test cases.

As the article says, “When taking the legislative route, the activists first get to know the political dynamics to identify friendly and potentially friendly lawmakers. They find residents to call lawmakers to express support for same-sex marriage. They start phone banks and petition drives. And, as with court action, they wait until they think their chances are good.”

The strategies in Iowa are different than those pursued in other states. For example, in Rhode Island activists are waiting until 2011 when Governor Carcieri, an opponent of gay marriage, leaves office.
The article makes a fine case study for the importance of knowing the context you are working in.

The Change Management Open Source Project just held its first conference call to discuss the topic of How to Lead Change When You Don’t Know Where You’re Going. Seemed like an apt topic for this environment. I posted a Podcast of the hour long call. To listen you need to register for the open source project. Everything associated with the project is free, by the way. You can register at Change Management Open Source Project.