Educational Leadership by Design

From architecture to fashion, to peace and education - design is a process that can be used to contribute to equitable and just outcomes, or not.

What examples come to mind when you think about DESIGN?

Consider airplane seats. These are far from one size fits all, and the few airlines that do offer varying seat sizes charge a higher price for those seats. This is inequitable for people with bigger bodies, for example. Doing design differently requires changing status quo power dynamics, internalized oppression, implicit bias, and more.

I recently facilitated a workshop with doctoral students focused on Educational Leadership through San Jose State University's EdD program in partnership with the Centre for Executive Education at the University for Peace (UPEACE). Through my adapted design process and experiential, embodied activities, we explored the question:

How might we design educational leadership futures with an equity-centered approach while navigating the necessary, transformative aspect of conflict and healing?

Here is an overview of the session and the design tools we utilized to re-envision the future of educational leadership and craft action steps to put into practice. I developed the content through my PhD research and consulting practice, and while our focus was on educational leadership, you can apply it and fill in the blank with your topic - or contact me to learn more and discuss.

A group of people standing on a wooden floor in front of a blue sign that reads "University for Peace" while holding pieces of paper with sketches, images, and words.

​In brief - systems of oppression, and particularly white supremacy culture, is (un)consciously reproduced by institutions who simultaneously benefit from it, noted by Aleixis Pauline-Gumbs in CRXlab, and it often shows up in the following ways (Tema Okun):

• perfectionism
• sense of urgency
• defensiveness
• quantity over quality
• worship of the written word
• paternalism
• either/or thinking
• power hoarding
• fear of open conflict
• individualism
• the idea the progress is bigger or more
• objectivity
• right to comfort

Institutions are made of people and we have the power to change. These characteristics often get integrated into beliefs, actions, interventions, and impacts - which are made by design. Transforming the way people and organizations engage in the design of interventions and processes to address systemic oppression and inequity, and to center equity and justice, requires doing design differently (CRXlab; National Equity Project).

A group of people talking with their neighbors while sitting at tables set up in a "U" shape with water bottles and writing materials on top of the tables, in a brightly lit room with green foliage outside of the windows.

​​Typical design processes​ related to design thinking, human-centered design, and user-centered design draw from a design model which emphasizes the following components (d.school):

However, in this model, inequity often shows up in a number of ways and can be mitigated:

• Empathy in action is one part of a process that requires humility to shift power, but not empathy alone will solve the problem as accounting for how paternalism might show up in the process and how the designer positions themselves (CRXlab).
• The way things are 2. defined can relate to power hoarding and individualism (CRXlab), and questions to consider include: Who benefits and is recognized, who are the decision-makers? Who is centered? What are the power dynamics? Note the open-ended-ness of the questions which also shifts power rather than asking yes or no questions (Helman, 2021).
• 3. Ideation/creation processes are often impacted by a majority group and ensue sense of urgency, and an opportunity to shift this is to reflect on and include collaborative processes to ensure accessibility, participation, and contribution (CRXlab). I have found that “moving at the speed of trust” is essential.
• Paternalism can also show up during the 4. prototype and 5. test phases, and a mitigation strategy includes to consider ownership and relationship by asking: What happens after the test? How is data shared and who owns it? (CRXlab).

To explore these concepts and put them into practice, we engaged with the following:

• REFLECT: What does educational leadership mean to you?
• SHARE A STORY about educational leadership in action - What worked? What got in the way?
• SKETCH an ideal future of educational leadership - What does it look like? Who is there?
• REFLECT on your proximity to power and consider: Where do I hold power? Where can I shift power? Who else has power? What is the impact?
• ANTICIPATE CHALLENGES, CONFLICT or transformation in the process and consider: What needs to change? How might I navigate and manage it? What resources do I have? Which resources might I need?
• DEBRIEF by sharing reflections as a group and identifying action steps to apply in educational leadership and other contexts.

The experiential learning and analog process meant no slides or screens, and it included somatic embodiment with a stretching circle, process facilitation with sticky-notes, and arts-based-methods via sketching with markers and crayons. Fun? Yes. Engaging? Yes. Inspiring? Yes!

The ideal futures we envisioned for educational leadership included a focus on connections, relationships, collaboration, trust, being heart-centered, considering the impacts of AI, and more. Action steps to take on the journey ranged from the policy to the classroom levels, and included ideas and initiatives about rest, play, creativity, and trying new things. 

​>> Thanks to the San Jose State Educational Leadership program participants and the Centre for Executive Education for coordinating the event!

>> If you would like to learn more or need a thought partner for your process, you can contact me to set up a free consultation.