Puna Ako
I talked with Mel today about Justine apparently organising "a rebellion" in Puna Ako time the other day to challenge our leadership.
I am wondering how to approach this. Our leadership was definitely challenged during the puna ako time, by Justine, Janine and Juanita, but Paul and I were able to challenge their thinking back, and continue with the task that we had planned. It has maybe cleared the air a little bit and allowed people's voices to be heard. I was disappointed to hear however that it had been planned before hand and actually wasn't anything to do with the task at all.
Mel got her information from Marama, and Marama from Justine, so it has affectively come to Paul and Myself third hand. I am wondering if perhaps we need to follow the information down the chain, so check with Mel to see if we can talk to Marama, and talk to Marama to see if we can talk to Justine, and then approach Justine about it.
I think it's important to follow this up, as we don't want it to happen again.
Since that Puna Ako time I have observed that Janine has moved away from Justine in terms of seating, and has sat next to me twice. She took a big part in both sessions and agreed with a lot of what I said. Even if this is subconscious, I think it is quite telling.
I made an effort to approach Juanita after the session that we had, to ask if she was OK and to give her a hug. I want to maintain a really good relationship with her and am unsure of how into this she was...
If Paul and I talk to Justine, which I think we should, we need to go into the conversation with a concrete structure, and to be both in the same mindset. We would need to meet before hand to sort out what we wanted to talk about...
Using the ladder of inference, I also don't want to jump to any conclusions. I want to go into the meeting with an open mindset, and view things from her side. We had done a whole lot of talking during the previous meetings (which was her complaint) but actually, we're co-constructing learning design, we aren't teaching the team like we would students, there needs to be some thinking time and some talking time or else it actually wouldn't be co-constructing learning - it would be us teaching the kaiako what to think.
Any feedback or suggestions are welcome! These are just my thoughts so that they're out of my head and I can sleep tonight!
I am wondering how to approach this. Our leadership was definitely challenged during the puna ako time, by Justine, Janine and Juanita, but Paul and I were able to challenge their thinking back, and continue with the task that we had planned. It has maybe cleared the air a little bit and allowed people's voices to be heard. I was disappointed to hear however that it had been planned before hand and actually wasn't anything to do with the task at all.
Mel got her information from Marama, and Marama from Justine, so it has affectively come to Paul and Myself third hand. I am wondering if perhaps we need to follow the information down the chain, so check with Mel to see if we can talk to Marama, and talk to Marama to see if we can talk to Justine, and then approach Justine about it.
I think it's important to follow this up, as we don't want it to happen again.
Since that Puna Ako time I have observed that Janine has moved away from Justine in terms of seating, and has sat next to me twice. She took a big part in both sessions and agreed with a lot of what I said. Even if this is subconscious, I think it is quite telling.
I made an effort to approach Juanita after the session that we had, to ask if she was OK and to give her a hug. I want to maintain a really good relationship with her and am unsure of how into this she was...
If Paul and I talk to Justine, which I think we should, we need to go into the conversation with a concrete structure, and to be both in the same mindset. We would need to meet before hand to sort out what we wanted to talk about...
Using the ladder of inference, I also don't want to jump to any conclusions. I want to go into the meeting with an open mindset, and view things from her side. We had done a whole lot of talking during the previous meetings (which was her complaint) but actually, we're co-constructing learning design, we aren't teaching the team like we would students, there needs to be some thinking time and some talking time or else it actually wouldn't be co-constructing learning - it would be us teaching the kaiako what to think.
Any feedback or suggestions are welcome! These are just my thoughts so that they're out of my head and I can sleep tonight!
What you describe, Jono, if it is as you see it, does require a followup conversation. Questions I would have - what would be the purpose of a followup conversation? What would you hope to get from that? What would you hope for the other parties to get from that? Who does that conversation extend to? all parties? and again, why? What role does Paul play in that conversation? A frame that I have used in the past with similar situations is "This is what I saw...and therefore this is what I wonder?" and invite response....happy to chat further in preparation if you need and if you do go down this track, keen to hear how it progresses.
ReplyDeleteAgree with Andy. If an issue has been cleared for now it is most likely going to arise again.
ReplyDeleteWould like to keep Marama safe in this space if possible unless she is happy to disclose to you.
I had a chat to Marama about this today, she said that the conversation was had after we had the discussion in Puna Ako time, and that Justine was simply thanking Bridie for taking part and saying her thoughts. I actually don't have any problem with this and think we should probably just leave it for now.
ReplyDelete