Dr. Keven Bartle

The nicest thing on my website, which is full of nice things. This is why I started providing reflective supervision. I'm currently working with over 50 people, individually or in groups, in-person or online. Get in touch if you'd like to know more. mind-your-head.net

NEW POST Belonging, Part Two Noticing Link below ⬇️

One of our Directors of Training @hgaldinoshea shares why she works at Thinking Reading 📚

When children arrive late, they still chose to show up. That’s worth acknowledging. A simple 'I’m glad you’re here' can mean more than a reprimand.

Delighted to share the new Student Leadership for IMPACT webpages. @ssat has a rich history of supporting schools in enhancing student leadership. We have now updated that offer in light of recent research. Join us for a free briefing in September. share.google/724j2KAc0CAGGI…

If you're an aspiring, new or experienced headteacher, our Head Cases programme offers a case-based approach to exploring the complexity of the role. It's not too late to sign up for cohort 2 of this innovative and involved approach to headship CPDL. ssatuk.co.uk/cpd/leadership…

@DavidDidau @peterabarnard I was struck by your phrase "act on the world," which was rather beautiful. I also like Arendt's notion of 'amor mundi' meaning 'for the love of the world'. I'd be tempted to bring them together, with school leaders acting on the world for the love of the world.

@kevbartle @peterabarnard Simplification is a risk but how else can we act on the world. If it’s just a mess of complexity we are prone to helplessness. What tend to see is that everyone simplifies by creating models of how the world works but too often these are deficit models

Cohort 2 of Head Cases is open for aspiring or serving headteachers from any setting. We will be using case studies and methods across five sessions to think deeply about complex challenges facing HTs, from complaints to HR, finance to exclusions. ssatuk.co.uk/cpd/leadership…

@DavidDidau @peterabarnard I think you're absolutely right. I wouldn't head towards relativism as a response. We are doomed to complexity but by no means doomed by it. I think the main thing is to keep both ends and means in view at the same time. Have plans and make models, but watch out for the people.

@DavidDidau @peterabarnard And, to be blunt, not many of us can do that and do it consistently when we assume the systems are the thing and not a metaphor for the thing. Very definitely including myself here.

@DavidDidau @peterabarnard We simplify in order to make sense of complexity. It's hardwired and completely natural. But to "think what we are doing", as Arendt pithily summarised, means that we have to actively pay attention to people and, at a meta level, to the so-called systems we create with them.

@DavidDidau @peterabarnard I guess that's the reason for a case-based approach. Putting ideals of human interaction in concrete terms helps leaders better consider the complexity of the phenomena they're dealing with and, ultimately, the relational nature of all leadership endeavour.

@DavidDidau @peterabarnard Indeed. I'm not completely averse to the notion of understanding human interaction in systemic terms. Where I draw the line is when ideas of systems lose any sense of human agency in their functioning. That's the point at which things become nonsensical and perhaps dangerous.

@DavidDidau @peterabarnard In which case their is the collectively agreed notion of a system. To make them non-negotiable is one way of making that more of a system, but it loses human agency along the way and is only a few steps away from a more totalising approach (I'm avoiding the other word).

@DavidDidau @peterabarnard I agree. With systems defined in such a way, influence AND control are at play, alongside agency, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. That represents an ongoing set of human processes. Making them into rules aims at systematising them, but they remain negotiated.

@DavidDidau @peterabarnard The system "accounts for" the iterative human norms of behaviour? Do you mean creates those norms? Sustains them? Is accountable for them?

@kevbartle @peterabarnard I don’t think it misses it, I think it accounts for it

@DavidDidau @peterabarnard I don't disagree with the thesis. What you are talking about here are norms of behaviour within groups. The pressures are from our interactions over time and in the moment. Ascribing that to the 'system' misses the iterative human basis of norms.

@kevbartle @peterabarnard My view is: humans are incentivised to do things because of system pressures. Surplus model takes the view that system is more likely to be cause of problems than people. Does that chime for you?

@DavidDidau @peterabarnard Systems can control people when they are totalitarian in nature. The deployment of force is necessitated. Unless we are happy with that, then more democratic forms of being together with others are unavoidable and unavoidably messy. But we can negotiate that messiness together.

@kevbartle @peterabarnard genuinely interested: what grounds do you have for saying systems can't control people?