problem solving executive education

Live Virtual Programs

Learn from our esteemed faculty in a rich, interactive digital environment, and equip yourself for a new, dynamic business landscape.

Saved Programs 0

Explore group and custom solutions

Accelerate your growth: build an outcome-based partnership between Kellogg and your organization.

Center for Nonprofit Management

In this era of dramatic social and economic change, nonprofit leaders are being challenged as never before — and the need for leadership development has never been greater.

Gain the Kellogg edge

A distinctive cross-disciplinary approach puts the Kellogg advantage to work for you.

• Executive Programs
• Online Programs
• C-Suite Programs
• Executive Scholar Certificate
• Request A Brochure
• Find a Program
• Our Partnership Philosophy
• Design Process & Team
• Association & Specialty Programs
• Academic Partners
• Group Registrations
• Inquiry Form
• Our approach
• Nonprofit Custom Programs
• Equity Essentials
• Nonprofit Management Essentials
• Join Mailing List
• The Kellogg Advantage
• Our Learning Environment
• Our Faculty
• Thought Leadership
• Participant Perspectives
• Alumni Benefits
• Subscribe to Newsletter
• Executive Education
• Individual Programs

Design Thinking: A Toolkit for Breakthrough Innovation

Kellogg Executive Education’s Design Thinking: A Toolkit for Breakthrough Innovation program offers participants a powerful framework for recognizing opportunities, generating and testing new ideas, and realizing new solutions.

Through a combination of interactive sessions, guest lectures, and demonstrations, Kellogg School of Management professor and IDEO designer David Schonthal will take you on an experiential learning journey that covers the entire arc of the design process from inspiration to implementation — and every step in between. Regardless of your role or industry, you will walk away from the program equipped with the tools and techniques to apply this design approach to a wide array of products, services, interfaces, and interactions.

• DOWNLOAD A BROCHURE

Who Should Attend

• Product or service managers seeking an innovative, consumer-oriented strategy that minimizes the risk of bringing a new product to market by developing deep insights, rapid prototyping, and designing thoughtful experiments
• Designers who want to address people’s need (both stated and unstated) through creative thought processes and advance their careers with a hands-on certificate program
• Consultants who want to offer clients far more differentiated and disruptive solutions using a step-by-step method of problem solving and integrated design thinking approaches
• C-suite professionals, heads of business, and entrepreneurs who recognize that gaining an edge and increasing market share require re-imagining their businesses from the bottom up and wish to make design thinking an inherent philosophy in their organizations
• Individuals or teams that are developing transformational business models and searching for new ways to bring offerings to the market with lower risk and strong customer focus

Key Benefits

• Learn to apply design thinking fundamentals to ensure that a solution is desirable from a human point of view and aligns with what is technologically feasible and economically viable
• Develop an in-depth understanding of the full design process from inspiration to implementation and learn to transform an idea into an innovative product or service
• Gain hands-on experience with key methods and tools including Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD) framework for customer discovery, synthesis, ideation, prototyping, and storytelling to create and communicate offerings that address customer needs
• Learn how design thinking is used to conceive innovative business models and forecast trends and developments
• Discover how design thinking can nurture your individual creativity, help you overcome resistance to new ideas, and provide advantages such as reduced time-to-market, lower costs, and increased market share
• Implement design thinking as a rigorous, human-centered approach to creative problem solving that can be leveraged across a spectrum of functions, industries, and organizations

Program Content

Module 1: Introduction to Design Thinking

Survey the fundamentals of design thinking and learn how they apply to solving business problems.

• Define the concept of design thinking
• Apply its principles to catalyze innovation
• Demonstrate how the process helps professionals solve challenging business problems
• Challenge assumptions using a rigorous, human-center approach to creative problem solving

Module 2: The Power of Why

Examine the functional, social, and emotional needs of users and stakeholders, and explore the connection between those needs and the decision-making process.

• Apply the JTBD method of interviewing to yield powerful insights into consumer needs and behaviors
• Zero in on the moment of struggle that underlies a customer’s decision to “purchase” a product, service, or experience
• Identify the push and pull factors that influence your customers’ decisions
• Understand the timeline of events in the decision-making process, and target your messaging effectively

Module 3: Translating Observations to Insights

Transform observations into meaningful insights that fuel innovation, using the process of synthesis.

• Externalize your data using the power of storytelling
• Identify common themes in your data to better understand your customers’ desired progress

Module 4: Reframing Opportunities and Generating Ideas

Learn how to generate novel ideas using insights captured during synthesis.

• Employ ideation as a generative process for developing design principles
• Apply the techniques of reframing and group brainstorming to develop actionable ideas and articulate business challenges
• Reframe questions to promote revolutionary innovation
• Follow the rules of brainstorming to support effective ideation

Module 5: Making Ideas Real

Discuss methods for prototyping ideas and testing their underlying assumptions.

• Implement prototyping to learn, communicate, and validate
• Apply the concepts and tools to develop a solution for your business
• Discuss techniques for executing and testing ideas, including sketches, mock-ups, videos, and storyboards
• Challenge assumptions about when, how, and why to prototype

Module 6: Overcoming Resistance to New Ideas and Change

New ideas frequently encounter resistance, often from the very people they are meant to help. Use the principles of friction theory to recognize and address factors that hinder the customer journey.

• Explain why consumers are often reluctant to adopt new ideas
• Use a friction map to identify bottlenecks
• Align remedies with forces of friction to overcome resistance

Module 7: Nontraditional Domains for Design Thinking

See how design thinking is making a difference in unexpected ways.

• Anticipate trends and development in the field
• Hear guest lecturers from a variety of firms and industries reflect on future trends to inspire your journey to innovation

Module 8: Designing Communications that Moves People

Apply creative techniques to design ways of communicating that are as unique as your ideas.

• Use visualization, storytelling, and design fiction to bring your ideas to life
• Leverage communications strategies to promote innovation and overcome resistance to new ideas
• Discuss the role of media and technology in communications design
• Build compelling stories using a narrative structure that comprises an emotional and a business arc

David Schonthal - Academic Director; Clinical Professor of Strategy; Director of Entrepreneurship Programs at Kellogg; Faculty Director of Zell Fellows Program; Director of the Levy Institute for Entrepreneurial Practice

What is the program about?

Design Thinking will allow you to view opportunity through a different lens; a nontraditional one that focuses on human needs. Ideas that are born from the process of design thinking ensure that outcomes meet three criteria: they are desirable, feasible, and viable—and in doing so, these outcomes create an enduring competitive advantage.

What is the learning experience?

Your learning experience will consist of frameworks delivered via video lectures, live webinars, real world examples and case studies, application of frameworks through weekly activities, customized assignments and quizzes, discussion boards, and faculty engagement.

What is the program format?

The program consists of 8 modules delivered over 8 weeks online. Learners can expect to dedicate 4-6 hours per week to watch videos, complete assignments and participate in discussions.

Could a learner choose to opt out of some topics?

No. This is an online program in which a topic module is introduced each week and the learner is expected to watch the video lectures, participate in the optional live webinars, complete the exercises/activities and take the mastery quiz at the end of each week to progress to the subsequent week’s topic.

How much time is allocated to complete assignments?

The due date for submitting assignments is typically within 7 days of the module opening, but can be as long as 14 days, depending on the scope of the assignment. However, learners may request deadline extensions to accommodate for business and personal conflicts that may arise during the program timeframe. Reach out to the program leader to discuss any challenges you may have in completing assignments.

Can participation in this program be counted as credit toward a degree, either at Kellogg, Northwestern University or another academic institution?

No. Executive Education offers only non-degree programs and each participant receives a certificate of completion at the end of the program. This certificate does not count as credit toward a degree. In addition, at this time, our online programs do not count as credit toward a Kellogg Executive Scholar Certificate.

Does the program offer community engagement for learners?

Yes, participants can create a profile, connect and collaborate with peers, and interact with academic/industry experts such as program leaders and teaching assistants. Office hours will be held during the program and all participants are welcome to join in with questions or to discuss assignments.

What are the requirements for accessing the program?

Participants will need the following to access the The Art and Science of Innovation program:

• Valid email address
• Computing device connected to the internet (Mac/PC/laptop, tablet or smartphone)
• The latest version of your preferred browser to access our learning platform (Chrome and Firefox are preferred for accessing Canvas)
• Microsoft Office and PDF viewer to access content such as documents, spreadsheets, presentations, PDF files, and transcripts
• Additional software and resources may be required for certain programs – this will be communicated upon registration and/or at the beginning of the program
• PLEASE NOTE: Google, Vimeo and YouTube may be utilized in the program delivery

Does the program offer a certificate?

Yes. Participants will receive a digital certificate of completion from Kellogg following a successful conclusion to the program. Since this program is graded as a pass or fail, participants must receive an 80% to pass and obtain the certificate. This digital certificate can be shared with colleagues and posted on LinkedIn. (PLEASE NOTE: We do not provide reports of assessments, or “transcripts,” since this is a non-degree program.)

Who is Emeritus and what is their relationship with Kellogg Executive Education?

Kellogg Executive Education is partnering with Emeritus Institute of Management, an online education provider, to develop and deliver this program. By working with Emeritus, we are able to provide broader access to Executive Education, beyond our on-campus offerings, in a collaborative and engaging format that is consistent with Kellogg’s standard of quality.

Additional questions?

Please contact us by calling 847-467-6018 or email us at [email protected] .

Related Programs

Product Strategy: Develop and Manage Successful Products

Growth & Innovation

Leading and sustaining a culture of innovation, other pages in online programs:, pages in executive education.

• Custom Solutions
• Nonprofit Management
• The Kellogg Experience
• Subscribe to our Newsletter
• Kellogg Faculty Blogs
• Read Kellogg Insight

Kellogg School of Management

Decision Making

Make effective decisions — in business and in life..

Effective decision making is key to success in the workplace and beyond. In organizations, critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making are among the most important tasks people perform on a daily basis. However, increasing levels of complexity can put a significant strain on our judgement, often leading to poor choices that can have a long-term impact.

The Decision Making online program will equip you with the skills needed to make better, more effective decisions within your sphere of influence. Over six weeks, you’ll gain a framework for understanding decisions across a range of contexts, from business strategy to policy.

Learn from world-class subject matter experts as you explore the cognitive processes, psychological, and behavioral foundations that form the basis of decision making. Throughout the program, you’ll learn to analyze your choices using the three core pillars of decision making (context, uncertainty, and time), as you investigate theoretical models underpinning decisions and engage in discussions with a global network of professionals.

You’ll examine the use of mental shortcuts called heuristics. You’ll also explore the most notable biases people have and how to circumvent them. By the end of the program, you’ll walk away with a better understanding of decision-making processes that will help you avoid pitfalls and make effective decisions in both your career and personal life.

Program Dates

Registration closes: April 30, 2024

Start date: May 08, 2024

Program Details

Length: 6 weeks (excluding orientation)

Commitment: 6 - 8 hours per week

Fee: $1,900

Outcome: Make better decisions with an in-depth understanding of how and why they’re made.

Yale SOM developed this program to be administered by our program collaborator, GetSmarter. Please direct all program-related inquiries, including questions about fees and registration, to GetSmarter .

The class equips you with the tools to better understand yourself and some great techniques for bringing biases to consciousness for more informed and ultimately more beneficial decisions. JD Sparks

About the Program

What to expect.

• Discover the cognitive processes involved in decision making
• Explore how choices are influenced by decision frames, points of reference, and information load
• Investigate the role of heuristics and biases in decision making
• Learn the ways in which risk and uncertainty impact decisions
• Analyze the temporal dimension of decision making
• Gain the ability to make more effective decisions both personally and professionally
• Find out how to avoid common pitfalls in decision making and analyze decisions using multiple lenses

Who Should Attend

• Business leaders looking for the tools to make informed, strategic decisions in the face of uncertainty
• Seasoned professionals who want to move ahead in their careers by making stronger decisions
• Individuals in fast-paced industries such as marketing, IT, finance, and business development
• Anyone who wants to improve their critical thinking and judgment in everyday life

Modules are released on a weekly basis and can be completed in your own time and at your own pace.

• Orientation module
• Module 1: Principles of decision making
• Module 2: Context and choice in decision making
• Module 3: Context and decision rules
• Module 4: Decision making under risk and uncertainty
• Module 5: Time in decision making
• Module 6: Integrating context, uncertainty, and time

I started with a very basic knowledge of decision-making and the ways in which our decisions can be biased. I'm leaving with a much more robust and varied understanding that I can use going forward in both personal and professional contexts. Alison Walkley

Program Convener

Gal Zauberman

Joseph F. Cullman, 3rd Professor of Marketing 

Areas of Expertise: Behavioral Economics, Consumer Behavior, Creativity, Decision-making Methodology, Online Marketing

Professor Gal Zauberman studies judgment and decision making, and behavioral economics. He has researched the factors that affect individuals' evaluations, preferences, and choice, with specific interest in the role of time in decisions and experiences. He has published articles in leading marketing and psychology journals and received international media coverage, including the New York Times , Scientific American , and others. He won numerous awards, including the William O’Dell and the Paul Green best paper awards, and the Early Career Award for Distinguished Contributions to Consumer Psychology.

Registration Information

Registration ends: April 30, 2024 Program starts with orientation: May 08, 2024

There are no prerequisites for this program. Register to get started. Our online program collaborator, GetSmarter, will welcome you and guide you through the steps to secure your place in the program.

Program Fee Assistance

A program fee reduction of 15% is available for those working in the nonprofit or government sectors; Yale University alumni; small groups of 3-6; and those who have previously participated in a Yale Executive Education program with Yale SOM or 2U/GetSmarter.*

*Discounts cannot be combined.

This program does not qualify for veteran financial aid or veterans benefits at this time.

Program Collaborator

This program is presented entirely online in collaboration with leaders in digital education,  GetSmarter , a 2U, Inc. brand. Technology meets academic rigor in GetSmarter’s people-mediated model, which enables lifelong learners across the globe to obtain industry-relevant skills that are certified by the world’s most reputable academic institutions. This interactive, supportive teaching model is designed for busy professionals and results in unprecedented certification rates for online programs.

View the  Decision Making  online program on the GetSmarter website.

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making

June 18, 24, 25, 27, July 4, 2024 8:30 AM to 12:00 PM (GMT+08) on all dates

PROGRAM FORMAT Delivered online via live virtual interactive sessions in Zoom

PROGRAM FEE PHP 25,990.00 or USD 473.00* *The prevailing exchange rate at the date of payment may apply.

Let us know if you are interested to avail of early bird/group discount or discuss payment terms.

Program Overview

With the challenges that many organizations are facing in the new normal, companies have identified critical thinking and decision-making as essential skills that are integral to their long-term success. The most capable leaders can scan and assess the environment, analyze the problem, design a solution, and implement with excellence to win in a competitive market.

Given the volatile environment, individual contributors, supervisors, managers, and entrepreneurs alike need to understand how to evaluate and solve day-to-day business problems systematically and methodically.

A proven methodology for critical thinking and decision-making is used by many successful companies globally today. It emphasizes the step-by-step approach for exploring solutions, successfully solving problems, making good decisions, and identifying risks and opportunities. As a critical learning outcome of the program, participants will be able to apply the conceptual framework on real-life challenges they face at work.

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making are essential skills required for today’s professionals and first line leaders to add value and contribute to the success of the company.

Program Objectives

• Enhance and develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills of participants
• Learn proven methodology in assessing and solving day-to-day business problems
• Apply learning in real-life business issues and challenges

What You Will Learn

• Fundamentals of Critical Thinking
• Personal thinking styles and approaches
• Problem solving conceptual framework and methodology
• Brainstorming processes and techniques
• Communication necessary for collaborative critical thinking initiatives
• Application to day-to-day problems and issues

Key Benefits

• It reinforces critical thinking and problem-solving abilities of key people in the organization
• It enhances the creativity and innovation efforts of companies to remain competitive and relevant in the market
• Provides a framework to address key pain points of customers
• It encourages and promotes curiosity to explore various options to solve day-to-day business issues and challenges
• Strengthens decision-making skills in the organization

Who Should Attend

This program is designed for executives, managers, supervisors, and individual contributors who are tasked with making decisions and solving day-to-day problems of the company.

Executive Education

Essential training for a fast-changing world.

Today's leaders face unparalleled challenges in business, finance, technology, and energy. Your team needs support from experts to productively navigate a complex, dynamic, and global ecosystem. Let’s make that happen.

Fletcher brings nine decades of cross-sector experience training world leaders at the highest levels of global policy to the challenges your team must overcome.  

Your organization needs more than a one-size-fits-all solution

Every organization has its own culture, context, and strategy. We honor the unique facets of your team while working closely with you to understand your goals and determine the best combination of subject matter, format, learner engagement, and approach to further your strategy. 

Strategy that drives organizational change

Through hands-on practice and timely, informed insights from our expert faculty, your leaders will develop the analytical problem-solving skills and essential competencies required to anticipate and respond to the demands of our complex and fast-changing world. 

Participants in our programs emerge with a detailed understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing your industry, and the agility to strategize across sectors. 

Executive Education creates trainings intended for cohorts of 15-35 people. Contact us today to discuss what program modality is the ideal fit for your organization.

What recent partners have achieved with us.

Equip leaders for a strategic priority pivot towards climate finance on a global scale

Our team created  Envision , a 6-week online course with a 5-day immersion and follow-up at bank headquarters, for the Asian Development Bank. This bespoke climate leadership training for ADB’s top 100 executives advanced a strategic pivot toward climate finance as the bank’s top investment priority, and empowered its leadership to make informed decisions in pursuing the bank’s goals.

Empower the next generation to succeed in high-stakes negotiations

The “Empowering Young Leaders in Environmental Negotiation” program was a 4-week online course developed for the Global Environment Facility. In the lead-up to COP28, we offered self-paced training in climate negotiation for up to 300 emerging professionals in GEF’s stakeholder and CSO network.

Develop agility and confidence in international security, global business and geopolitical risk 

Fletcher Executive Education provides Diplomatic Leadership Academies (5-day immersion) each year for the Ministry of External Affairs, India. This annual partnership with the Sushma Swaraj Institute of Foreign Service provides mid-career and senior-level foreign service officers with in-depth understanding of how to address the complex challenges they face in their work in South and East Asia. 

Prepare early-career public servants for the unprecedented challenges ahead 

The Aso O. Tavitian Scholars Program has supported educational opportunities for Armenian public servants for nearly 25 years. Each carefully selected cohort completes a semester-long training program in public policy and public administration. In addition to learning from Fletcher’s world-renowned faculty, Scholars engage in enriching networking and co-curricular experiences in Boston and the Northeastern United States. 

Testimonials

“It’s very important for senior executives to get outside of our work environment and come together to discuss something that’s common to everyone, which is the future of the next generation."

“The program was able to paint a realistic picture of what’s going on in the world. It gives us a sense of optimism because it’s not too late, and we can do something about climate change. With a multilateral development bank like ADB, working with academic institutions and think tanks, I think it’s crucial that we do this and continue to learn in the future.”

–Woochong Um, Managing Director General, Asian Development Bank 

Solutions for organizations

Create a powerful learning experience for your team.

Programs are customized for your goals: from masterclasses offering just-in-time content to an executive academy on campus that provides an immersive space for visionary work.

Work with globally renowned experts 

Since 1933, our faculty have trained and advised diplomats, business leaders, and policymakers, from the United Nations and the World Bank to Fortune 500 companies, international foundations, and government ministries. 

Fields of study from across The Fletcher School can be curated so as to design a customized experience for your unique organization. Explore our learning areas below or  contact us today to discuss tailoring a training experience for your team.

Flagship content areas for your custom program

Climate & Sustainability

When it comes to climate, we don’t pledge. We plan.

Effective climate leadership starts with a knowledge base in climate literacy, including climate risk, global ambitions, and global architecture of climate finance and policy. Our programs delve into current trends and strategies for sustainability and climate policy, including effective public-private partnership, low-carbon economic growth, carbon markets, and regional considerations so that your leaders have the confidence to execute your most complex goals.

Strategic Leadership for Impact

In the Leadership Lab, a reflection and practice-based workshop proven to cultivate mindsets and strategies for exercising effective and responsible leadership, your team will learn to lead through volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous, and multicultural contexts.leadership identity and leading teams. 

Our experienced faculty will guide your cohort through the intricacies of how to shape strategy, culture, and the course of history. 

Using case studies of real-world global crises, international organizations, and national change initiatives, participants will learn how individuals can create and manage change at scale, whether in a team, company, region, or internationally.

Negotiation & Conflict Management

Examine causes of violent conflict in the international context. 

Our faculty specialize in theories and practice of international negotiation, mediation, problem-solving, and various other approaches to international conflict resolution.

Hands-on, simulation-based workshops build mastery in negotiation and conflict resolution that consider the role of gender, culture, development, and religion as they relate to conflict and conflict resolution. Training incorporates examples from current affairs to ensure each cohort’s content is relevant and timely.

International Economics

Fletcher can instill both deep technical expertise and highly applied strategic insight in international eco- nomic relations, international trade relations, current trends in governance, and the impact of policy on business interactions and outcomes in your organization. 

Customize your program to examine a wide range of policies and their implications, including prudential and preferential regulations on international trade, tariffs, trade quotas, controls on international financial flows, exchange rates, and spillover effects of domestic macroeconomic policies. 

In our workshops, your executives will examine how global trends shape your industry in the short- and long-term future, including regional and geopolitical analysis.

Learn more about this content area.

International Law

The Fletcher School offers a uniquely interdisciplinary and hands-on approach to this critical area of expertise, providing a foundation in international legal studies and international governance, while also connecting legal expertise to solving critical problems: cybersecurity, global trade, public-private partnership, technology advancement, humanitarian action, the environment, and sustainability.

Fletcher offers a full curriculum in international law, including deep expertise in the international legal order, public international law, international business and economic law, human rights law, and the law of armed conflict. Our law faculty work with international organizations, governments, and policymakers in the development of new frameworks and treaties, in international arbitration, as well as in conflict transformation and peacebuilding.

Learn more about this content area

Fletcher campus

• Enjoy the comfort of accommodation in a local hotel, with daily campus shuttles
• Designed for big picture learning with a breadth of expertise, cohort-building, and strategic planning
• Best suited for convening global teams and setting new strategic directions

Global location

• Bring Fletcher to your headquarters with three to five faculty experts fully focused on you
• Best suited for targeted problem-solving, strategic level-setting, and cohort-building.

Build for what’s next with Executive Education

Request information, the executive advantage.

At Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, we believe in building a better business world through advanced education. Our Executive Education experience is designed to help professionals from all backgrounds create positive change. Our goal is to empower you to lead teams, drive change, and inspire innovation. And if you’re looking to break into a new industry, Executive Education allows you to explore new opportunities and skills that reflect your desired professional development needs.

Our Executive Education courses, certificates, and academies are offered both online and in-person, and give you access to world-renowned Johns Hopkins faculty and experts. And because our courses are built around the skills and knowledge specific to your industry, you’ll find innovative solutions to tackle complex problems specific to your career aspirations.

Looking to stay ahead of the curve? Join the next wave of business innovators, and tap into more creative and unique problem-solving techniques. With Innovation and Human-Centered Design courses, professionals revolutionize their problem-solving approach, implement co-creation to promote a more collaborative culture, and work to solve complex, everyday issues to drive organizational success.

"Executive Education is crucial for our evolution and maturity both personally and professionally. Regardless of role or responsibility, there are always opportunities to learn new techniques or enhance skills. Many times, it is the rediscovery of knowledge and skills that have helped me grow as both an individual contributor and leader." Rudy de Leon Dinglas, Chief of Staff, Bloomberg Center for Government Excellence, Johns Hopkins University

The Johns Hopkins difference

Today, the world needs leaders who rise to meet complex challenges. If you’re ready to build on a legacy of innovation while pushing yourself and the status quo, then Johns Hopkins is the place for you.

Learn from Johns Hopkins experts

Choose courses built for your career

Network with executives from around the world

Online options

Our Executive Education courses are designed to provide insights and practical skills to move purposefully to the highest levels of leadership. Choose from over 30 programs, ranging in length from two days to two weeks. Led by industry experts across Johns Hopkins University, our courses are taught in five main subject areas:

• Business Communication 
• Design Thinking for Innovation
• Financial Management
• Health Care

Certificates

Our executive certificate programs are designed to give you a competitive advantage. Learn to generate change, inspire innovation, and instill excellence through one of our comprehensive executive certificates:

• Executive Certificate in Business Communication
• Executive Certificate in Design Thinking for Innovation
• Executive Certificate in Financial Management
• Executive Certificate in Organizational Leadership

Our academy programs will help you reach your potential by accelerating your ability to influence teams, organizations, and markets. Learn from experts in this dynamic learning environment through experiential learning activities, simulations, team exercises, lectures, and projects. You will leave with an actionable plan to take your career to the next level.

• Strategic Healthcare Leadership Program: Transforming the Business of Health
• The Academy for Women and Leadership 

Custom Programs

Instead of a one-size-fits-all training, our custom programs for organizations focus on a small number of leadership capabilities essential for success in your business. Our expert faculty cover various industry areas and tailor the program to the needs of your team. These are not your typical one-off courses. These are programs built to be used again and again to give your company long-term value.

• Innovative Leadership Program

About the Carey Business School

Grounded in the Johns Hopkins legacy of excellence and research, Johns Hopkins Carey Business School shapes business leaders who seize opportunity, inspire change, and create lasting value. We bring a modern business perspective to Johns Hopkins by shaping leaders who  build for what’s next ® .

With locations in Baltimore, MD, and Washington, D.C., Carey offers full-time, part-time, and online MBA and MS degree programs, and executive education programs for the global marketplace that are data-driven and built to compete in an everchanging business world. Carey’s faculty are thought-leaders, trailblazing what’s next in the business world and in the classroom. And at Carey, we learn by doing. For more information, visit  carey.jhu.edu .  

Smart. Open. Grounded. Inventive. Read our Ideas Made to Matter.

Which program is right for you?

Through intellectual rigor and experiential learning, this full-time, two-year MBA program develops leaders who make a difference in the world.

A rigorous, hands-on program that prepares adaptive problem solvers for premier finance careers.

A 12-month program focused on applying the tools of modern data science, optimization and machine learning to solve real-world business problems.

Earn your MBA and SM in engineering with this transformative two-year program.

Combine an international MBA with a deep dive into management science. A special opportunity for partner and affiliate schools only.

A doctoral program that produces outstanding scholars who are leading in their fields of research.

Bring a business perspective to your technical and quantitative expertise with a bachelor’s degree in management, business analytics, or finance.

A joint program for mid-career professionals that integrates engineering and systems thinking. Earn your master’s degree in engineering and management.

An interdisciplinary program that combines engineering, management, and design, leading to a master’s degree in engineering and management.

Executive Programs

A full-time MBA program for mid-career leaders eager to dedicate one year of discovery for a lifetime of impact.

This 20-month MBA program equips experienced executives to enhance their impact on their organizations and the world.

Non-degree programs for senior executives and high-potential managers.

A non-degree, customizable program for mid-career professionals.

3 ways companies can scale emissions reduction

Women’s career advice: Remember that exhaustion is not a yardstick for productivity

How, and why, to run a values-based business

Credit: Yaran / Shutterstock

Ideas Made to Matter

Operations Management

How to wire your organization to excel at problem-solving

Steven Spear

Nov 21, 2023

If leaders want to better understand their organization’s performance, they should look to their employees and how they do their work.

Organizations succeed when they design their processes, routines, and procedures to encourage employees to problem-solve and contribute to a common purpose, write MIT Sloan senior lecturer Steven Spear and Gene Kim in their new book, “ Wiring the Winning Organization .”

“When people have difficulty doing their work easily and well, despite investing their best time and energy to support the larger effort, we shouldn’t expect the enterprise as a whole to perform well either,” Spear and Kim write. “This is an organization that has not been wired to win.”

In this excerpt from their book, they outline the three collaborative layers of an organization and suggest three mechanisms leaders can engage to hone employees’ problem-solving skills.

The excerpt has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.

All organizations are sociotechnical systems — people working with other people, engaging (sometimes complex) technology to accomplish what they are collaborating on. Regardless of domain, collaborative problem-solving occurs on three distinct layers, where people focus their attention and express their experience, training, and creativity:

• Layer 1 contains the technical, scientific, and engineered objects that people are trying to study, create, or manipulate. These may be molecules in drug development, code in software development, physical parts in manufacturing, or patient injuries or illnesses in medical care. For people in Layer 1, their expertise is around these technical objects (i.e., their structure and behavior), and their work is expressed through designing, analyzing, fabricating, fixing, repairing, transforming, creating, and so forth.  
• Layer 2 contains the scientific, technical, or engineered tools and instrumentation through which people work on Layer 1 objects. These may be the devices that synthesize medicinal compounds in drug development, the development tools and operational platforms in software development, technologies that transform materials in manufacturing, or the technologies to diagnose and treat patients’ illnesses and injuries. Layer 2 capabilities include the operation, maintenance, and improvement of these tools and instruments. These first two layers are the “technical” part of a sociotechnical system.  
• Layer 3 contains the social circuitry. This is the overlay of processes, procedures, norms, and routines — the means by which individual efforts are expressed and integrated through collaboration toward a common purpose. This is the “socio” part of a sociotechnical system.

Danger zones and winning zones for solving really difficult problems

Leaders manage the social circuitry (Layer 3) that determines whether their organizations get dismal or great outcomes. How this circuitry is designed and operated dictates the conditions in which people can solve difficult problems, continually generate great and new ideas, and put them into impactful practice. Certain conditions make it more difficult to solve problems or generate new and useful ideas. We call that the danger zone. Other conditions make getting good answers easier. We call that the winning zone.

In the danger zone, problems are complex, with many factors affecting the system at once, and their relationships are highly intertwined. Hazards are many and severe, risks of failure are high, and costs of failure can be catastrophic. Systems in the danger zone are difficult to control, and there are limited, if any, opportunities to repeat experiences, so feedback-based learning is difficult if not outright impossible.

In contrast, leaders enable much more advantageous conditions in the winning zone. Problems have been reframed so they are simpler to address. The hazards and risks have been reduced so failures are less costly, especially during design, development, testing, and practice. Problem-solving has been shifted into slower-moving situations, where the pace of experiences can be better controlled. Opportunities to learn by experience or experimentation are increased to allow more iteration. And finally, there is much more clarity about where and when to focus problem-solving efforts, because it is obvious when problems are occurring, so attention is given to containing and solving them.

When we leave ourselves and our colleagues in the danger zone, it becomes extremely difficult to develop and design products and services and to develop and operate systems through which we collaborate and by which we coordinate. In fact, in such conditions, given the complexity and pace of the environment, it’s often difficult to even recognize that significant problems are occurring and that they must be addressed to avert disaster.

In contrast, when we change our experiences so they happen in the winning zone, generating good answers to difficult problems is much easier, because people are better able to put their capabilities to best use. We can move ourselves from the danger zone to the winning zone using the three mechanisms of slowification, simplification, and amplification.

Let’s take a closer look at defining each of these mechanisms:

• Slowification makes it easier to solve problems by pulling problem-solving out of the fast-paced and often unforgiving realm of performance (i.e., operations or execution). This shifting of Layer 3 problem-solving into planning and practice allows people to engage in deliberative, reflective experientially and experimentally informed reasoning rather than having to constantly react with whatever habits, routines, and legacy approaches have already been ingrained.  
• Simplification makes the problems themselves easier to solve by reshaping them. Large problems are deliberately broken down into smaller, simpler ones through a combination of three techniques: incrementalization, modularization, and linearization. By doing so, we partition complex problems with many interacting factors into many smaller problems. These problems have fewer interacting factors, making them easier to solve. Furthermore, Layer 1 (technical object) problem-solving can be done in parallel, with less need for Layer 3 coordination, increasing independence of action.  
• Amplification makes it obvious there are problems and makes it clear whether those problems have been seen and solved. Mechanisms are built into Layer 3 (social circuitry) to amplify that little things are amiss, drawing attention to them early and often. This focuses attention on containing and resolving small and local glitches before they have a chance to become large and systemically disruptive.

Ideally, an organization will have the latitude to do all three: slow things down to make problem-solving easier, partition big problems into smaller ones that are simpler to solve, and amplify problems so they’re addressed sooner and more often. Even if we cannot do all three, doing two or even one still brings us closer to the winning zone, making it easier for us to take situations about which we know too little and can do too little and convert them into situations in which we know enough and can do enough.

Excerpted from “Wiring the Winning Organization: Liberating Our Collective Greatness through Slowification, Simplification, and Amplification,” by Gene Kim and Steven J. Spear. © 2023 Gene Kim and Steven J. Spear. Reprinted by permission of IT Revolution. All rights reserved.

Related Articles

• Executive Courses by Location
• Executive Courses by Subject
• Top 10 Lists: Executive Education
• Executive Education FAQs
• Executive Education Articles
• Full Calendar
• Advanced Executive Search
• Latin America
• UK / Ireland
• Africa / Middle East
• Australia / New Zealand
• View All Countries
• Finance for Non-Financial Managers
• Soft Skills
• Entrepreneurship
• General Management
• Human Resources
• Information Technology (IT)
• Negotiation
• Supply Chain
• Business Analytics & Big Data
• View All Specialities

Problem Solving / Decisionmaking

The process of dissecting a problem, weighing different courses of action, and arriving at a decision is often not straightforward. Executive programs in problem solving and decision making generally focus on training managers to approach problems more objectively, critically, and creatively. Some courses teach managers and executives how to break down complex problems or big decisions into smaller pieces that can be analyzed and tackled individually from a quantitative and qualitative perspective.

Related Articles

Executive Education: a Path to the C-Suite

By Seb Murray on Sep 20, 2023

Business schools are now offering programs that help fast-track executives to the upper echelons of business

Making the Most of an Executive Course

By Seb Murray on Feb 09, 2023

Preparation is key to maximizing the benefits of a business school program

Business Schools Forge Ahead with Online Courses

By Seb Murray on Jan 27, 2023

Even as pandemic restrictions have been loosened, online methods of delivery have become a permanent fixture of executive education, swelling digital enrolments

Innovative Methods to Measure the Impact of Executive Education

By Seb Murray on Jul 13, 2022

With competition intensifying in the corporate training market, business schools are developing new and more sophisticated ways to measure the true value of training

More Articles

• Terms of Use
• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy

Information

• What is Executive Education?
• Executive Courses
• Featured Executive Courses
• MBA Programs
• Online MBA Programs
• MiM Programs

Search Executive Courses

Subscribe to our newsletter.

• © 2001–2024 Pritzwalks – Executive Courses

• Back to All Programs /

Strategic Leadership

Enhance your ability to creatively problem-solve for the demands of working in ‘the new normal'.

All Start Dates

8:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET

3 consecutive days

Registration Deadline

August 18, 2024

December 1, 2024

What You'll Learn

Senior leaders face an unprecedented number of challenges in today’s rapidly-changing business environment, from an evolving workforce to complex strategic issues. To succeed in this dynamic business environment, strategic leadership involves asking better questions, leveraging a diverse workforce, and addressing the complex problems our organizations face in new ways.

During this interactive 3-day program, you will build upon your proven leadership skills with new insights, frameworks and tools to inspire yourself and better lead your team and organization. Reflective exercises, a leadership assessment instrument (Hogan), application activities, and case studies will help you work through modern-day dilemmas and solve problems using both critical and creative thinking. Small and large group discussions will focus on addressing the paradoxes of effective leadership at the executive level.

Program Benefits

• Examine what in organizational leadership is evolving — and what is remaining the same — and develop insight into how to address new and emerging senior leadership challenges
• Understand the multipliers and diminishers of effective leadership, and how to evolve as senior leaders
• Build and sustain greater levels of motivation and trust through more strategic leadership
• Earn a Certificate of Participation from the Harvard Division of Continuing Education

Topics Covered

• Leadership in today’s business world: what’s similar, what’s different, and why the stakes are higher
• Inspiring and motivating a diverse talent team
• Solving complex problems using both critical and creative thinking
• Managing modern-day dilemmas
• Addressing the tradeoffs, tensions, and dilemmas we face as senior leaders
• Future-proofing our organizations and ourselves

Who Should Enroll

This program is intended for senior managers with at least 10 years of management experience and proven leadership skills who want to enhance their capabilities to lead at higher levels in the organization.

Considering this program?

Send yourself the details.

Related Programs

• Emotional Intelligence in Leadership Training Program
• Agile Leadership: Transforming Mindsets and Capabilities in Your Organization
• Executive Leadership Coaching: Mastery Session

August Schedule

• The New World of Work and Leading In the ‘New Normal’
• Strategic Self-Leadership – Part I
• Strategic Self-Leadership – Part II
• Strategic People and Organizational Leadership
• Strategic Problem-Solving
• Strategic Leadership for the Future – Ourselves, Others, Organizations

December Schedule

Margaret andrews, certificates of leadership excellence.

The Certificates of Leadership Excellence (CLE) are designed for leaders with the desire to enhance their business acumen, challenge current thinking, and expand their leadership skills.

This program is one of several CLE qualifying programs. Register today and get started earning your certificate.

Harvard Division of Continuing Education

The Division of Continuing Education (DCE) at Harvard University is dedicated to bringing rigorous academics and innovative teaching capabilities to those seeking to improve their lives through education. We make Harvard education accessible to lifelong learners from high school to retirement.

Advertisement

Educational leaders’ problem-solving for educational improvement: Belief validity testing in conversations

• Open access
• Published: 01 October 2021
• Volume 24 , pages 133–181, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Claire Sinnema   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6707-6726 1 ,
• Frauke Meyer 1 ,
• Deidre Le Fevre 1 ,
• Hamish Chalmers 1 &
• Viviane Robinson 1  

13k Accesses

8 Citations

21 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Educational leaders’ effectiveness in solving problems is vital to school and system-level efforts to address macrosystem problems of educational inequity and social injustice. Leaders’ problem-solving conversation attempts are typically influenced by three types of beliefs—beliefs about the nature of the problem, about what causes it, and about how to solve it. Effective problem solving demands testing the validity of these beliefs—the focus of our investigation. We analyzed 43 conversations between leaders and staff about equity related problems including teaching effectiveness. We first determined the types of beliefs held and the validity testing behaviors employed drawing on fine-grained coding frameworks. The quantification of these allowed us to use cross tabs and chi-square tests of independence to explore the relationship between leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors (those identified as more routine or more robust, and those relating to both advocacy and inquiry) and belief type. Leaders tended to avoid discussion of problem causes, advocate more than inquire, bypass disagreements, and rarely explore logic between solutions and problem causes. There was a significant relationship between belief type and the likelihood that leaders will test the validity of those beliefs—beliefs about problem causes were the least likely to be tested. The patterns found here are likely to impact whether micro and mesosystem problems, and ultimately exo and macrosystem problems, are solved. Capability building in belief validity testing is vital for leadership professional learning to ensure curriculum, social justice and equity policy aspirations are realized in practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

Teachers’ Beliefs Shift Across Year-Long Professional Development: ENA Graphs Transformation of Privately Held Beliefs Over Time

Addressing inequity and underachievement: Intervening to improve middle leaders’problem-solving conversations

Teaching Testable Explanations and Putting Them into Practice

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

This study examines the extent to which leaders, in their conversations with others, test rather than assume the validity of their own and others’ beliefs about the nature, causes of, and solutions to problems of teaching and learning that arise in their sphere of responsibility. We define a problem as a gap between the current and desired state, plus the demand that the gap be reduced (Robinson, 1993 ). We position this focus within the broader context of educational change, and educational improvement in particular, since effective discussion of such problems is central to improvement and vital for addressing issues of educational equity and social justice.

Educational improvement and leaders’ role in problem solving

Educational leaders work in a discretionary problem-solving space. Ball ( 2018 ) describes discretionary spaces as the micro level practices of the teacher. It is imperative to attend to what happens in these spaces because the specific talk and actions that occur in particular moments (for example, what the teacher says or does when one student responds in a particular way to his or her question) impact all participants in the classroom and shape macro level educational issues including legacies of racism, oppression, and marginalization of particular groups of students. A parallel exists, we argue, for leaders’ problem solving—how capable leaders are at dealing with micro-level problems in the conversational moment impacts whether a school or network achieves its improvement goals. For example, how a leader deals with problems with a particular teacher or with a particular student or group of students is subtly but strongly related to the solving of equity problems at the exo and macro levels. Problem solving effectiveness is also related to challenges in the realization of curriculum reform aspirations, including curriculum reform depth, spread, reach, and pace (Sinnema & Stoll, 2020b ).

The conversations leaders have with others in their schools in their efforts to solve educational problems are situated in a broader environment which they both influence and are influenced by. We draw here on Bronfonbrenner’s ( 1992 ) ecological systems theory to construct a nested model of educational problem solving (see Fig.  1 ). Bronfenbrenner focused on the environment around children, and set out five interrelated systems that he professed influence a child’s development. We propose that these systems can also be used to understand another type of learner—educators, including leaders and teachers—in the context of educational problem solving.

Nested model of educational problem solving

Bronfenbrenner’s ( 1977 ) microsystem sets out the immediate environment, parents, siblings, teachers, and peers as influencers of and influenced by children. We propose the micro system for educators to include those they have direct contact with including their students, other teachers in their classroom and school, the school board, and the parent community. Bronfenbrenner’s meso system referred to the interactions between a child’s microsystems. In the same way, when foregrounding the ecological system around educators, we suggest attention to the problems that occur in the interactions between students, teachers, school leaders, their boards, and communities. In the exo system, Bronfenbrenner directs attention to other social structures (formal and informal), which do not themselves contain the child, but indirectly influence them as they affect one of the microsystems. In the same way, we suggest educational ministries, departments and agencies function to influence educators. The macro system as theorized by Bronfenbrenner focuses on how child development is influenced by cultural elements established in society, including prevalent beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions. In our model, we recognise how such cultural elements of Bronfenbrenner’s macro system also relate to educators in that dominant and pervasive beliefs, attitudes and perceptions create and perpetuate educational problems, including those relating to educational inequity, bias, racism, social injustice, and underachievement. The chronosystem, as Bronfenbrenner describes, shows the role of environmental changes across a lifetime, which influences development. In a similar way, educators′ professional transitions and professional milestones influence and are influenced by other system levels, and in the context of our work, their problem solving approaches.

Leaders’ effectiveness in discussions about problems related to the micro and mesosystem contributes greatly to the success of exosystem reform efforts, and those efforts, in turn, influence the beliefs, attitudes, and ideologies of the macrosystem. As Fig.  1 shows, improvement goals (indicated by the arrows moving from the current to a desired state) in the exo or macrosystem are unlikely to be achieved without associated improvement in the micro and mesosystem involving students, teachers, and groups of teachers, schools and their boards and parent communities. Similarly, the level of improvement in the macro and exosystems is limited by the extent to which more improvement goals at the micro and mesosystem are achieved through solving problems relating to students’ experience and school and classroom practices including curriculum, teaching, and assessment. As well as drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, our nested model of problem solving draws on problem solving theory to draw attention to how gaps between current and desired states at each of the system levels also influence each other (Newell & Simon, 1972 ). Efforts to solve problems in any one system (to move from current state toward a more desired state) are supported by similar moves at other interrelated systems. For example, the success of a teacher seeking to solve a curriculum problem (demand from parents to focus on core knowledge in traditional learning domains, for example)—a problem related to the microsystem and mesosystem—will be influenced by how similar problems are recognised, attended to, and solved by those in the ministries, departments and agencies in the exosystem.

In considering the role of educational leaders in this nested model of problem solving, we take a capability perspective (Mumford et al., 2000 ) rather than a leadership style perspective (Bedell-Avers et al., 2008 ). School leaders (including those with formal and informal leadership positions) require particular capabilities if they are to enact ambitious policies and solve complex problems related to enhancing equity for marginalized and disadvantaged groups of students (Mavrogordato & White, 2020 ). Too often, micro and mesosystem problems remain unsolved which is problematic not only for those directly involved, but also for the resolution of the related exo and macrosystem problems. The ill-structured nature of the problems school leaders face, and the social nature of the problem-solving process, contribute to the ineffectiveness of leaders’ problem-solving efforts and the persistence of important microsystem and mesosystem problems in schools.

Ill-structured problems

The problems that leaders need to solve are typically ill-structured rather than clearly defined, complex rather that than straight-forward, and adaptive rather than routine challenges (Bedell-Avers et al., 2008 ; Heifetz et al., 2009 ; Leithwood & Stager, 1989 ; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992 , 1995 ; Mumford & Connelly, 1991 ; Mumford et al., 2000 ; Zaccaro et al., 2000 ). As Mumford and Connelly explain, “even if their problems are not totally unprecedented, leaders are, […] likely to be grappling with unique problems for which there is no clear-cut predefined solution” (Mumford & Connelly, 1991 , p. 294). Most such problems are difficult to solve because they can be construed in various ways and lack clear criteria for what counts as a good solution. Mumford et al. ( 2000 ) highlight the particular difficulties in solving ill-structured problems with regard to accessing, evaluating and using relevant information:

Not only is it difficult in many organizational settings for leaders to say exactly what the problem is, it may not be clear exactly what information should be brought to bear on the problem. There is a plethora of available information in complex organizational systems, only some of which is relevant to the problem. Further, it may be difficult to obtain accurate, timely information and identify key diagnostic information. As a result, leaders must actively seek and carefully evaluate information bearing on potential problems and goal attainment. (p. 14)

Problems in schools are complex. Each single problem can comprise multiple educational dimensions (learners, learning, curriculum, teaching, assessment) as well as relational, organizational, psychological, social, cultural, and political dimensions. In response to a teaching problem, for example, a single right or wrong answer is almost never at play; there are typically countless possible ‘responses’ to the problem of how to teach effectively in any given situation.

Problem solving as socially situated

Educational leaders’ problem solving is typically social because multiple people are usually involved in defining, explaining, and solving any given problem (Mumford et al., 2000 ). When there are multiple parties invested in addressing a problem, they typically hold diverse perspectives on how to describe (frame, perceive, and communicate about problems), explain (identify causes which lead to the problem), and solve the problem. Argyris and Schön ( 1974 ) argue that effective leaders must manage the complexity of integrating multiple and diverse perspectives, not only because all parties need to be internally committed to solutions, but also because quality solutions rely on a wide range of perspectives and evidence. Somewhat paradoxically, while the multiple perspectives involved in social problem solving add to their inherent complexity, these perspectives are a resource for educational change, and for the development of more effective solutions (Argyris & Schön, 1974 ). The social nature of problem solving requires high trust so participants can provide relevant, accurate, and timely information (rather than distort or withhold it), recognize their interdependence, and avoid controlling others. In high trust relationships, as Zand’s early work in this field established, “there is less socially generated uncertainty and problems are solved more effectively” (Zand, 1972 , p. 238).

Leaders’ capabilities in problem solving

Leadership research has established the centrality of capability in problem solving to leadership effectiveness generally (Marcy & Mumford, 2010 ; Mumford et al., 2000 , 2007 ) and to educational leadership in particular. Leithwood and Stager ( 1989 ), for example, consider “administrator’s problem-solving processes as crucial to an understanding of why principals act as they do and why some principals are more effective than others” (p. 127). Similarly, Robinson ( 1995 , 2001 , 2010 ) positions the ability to solve complex problems as central to all other dimensions of effective educational leadership. Unsurprisingly, problem solving is often prominent in standards for school leaders/leadership and is included in tools for the assessment of school leadership (Goldring et al., 2009 ). Furthermore, its importance is heightened given the increasing demand and complexity in standards for teaching (Sinnema, Meyer & Aitken, 2016) and the trend toward leadership across networks of schools (Sinnema, Daly, Liou, & Rodway, 2020a ) and the added complexity of such problem solving where a system perspective is necessary.

Empirical research on leaders’ practice has revealed that there is a need for capability building in problem solving (Le Fevre et al., 2015 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ; Sinnema et al., 2013 ; Sinnema et al., 2016 ; Smith, 1997 ; Spillane et al., 2009 ; Timperley & Robinson, 1998 ; Zaccaro et al., 2000 ). Some studies have compared the capability of leaders with varying experience. For example, Leithwood and Stager ( 1989 ) noted differences in problem solving approaches between novice and expert principals when responding to problem scenarios, particularly when the scenarios described ill-structured problems. Principals classified as ‘experts’ were more likely to collect information rather than make assumptions, and perceived unstructured problems to be manageable, whereas typical principals found these problems stressful. Expert principals also consulted extensively to get relevant information and find ways to deal with constraints. In contrast, novice principals consulted less frequently and tended to see constraints as obstacles (Leithwood & Stager, 1989 ). Allison and Allison ( 1993 ) reported that while experienced principals were better than novices at developing abstract problem-solving goals, they were less interested in the detail of how they would pursue these goals. Similar differences were found in Spillane et al.’s ( 2009 ) work that found expert principals to be better at interpreting problems and reflecting on their own actions compared with aspiring principals. More recent work (Sinnema et al., 2021 ) highlights that educators perceptions of discussion quality is positively associated with both new learning for the educator (learning that influences their practice) and improved practice (practices that reach students)—the more robust and helpful educators report their professional discussion to be, the more likely they are to report improvement in their practice. This supports the demand for quality conversation in educational teams.

Solving problems related to teaching and learning that occur in the micro or mesosystem usually requires conversations that demand high levels of interpersonal skill. Skill development is important because leaders tend to have difficulty inquiring deeply into the viewpoints of others (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015 ; Le Fevre et al., 2015 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ). In a close analysis of 43 conversation transcripts, Le Fevre et al. ( 2015 ) showed that when leaders anticipated or encountered diverse views, they tended to ask leading or loaded rather than genuine questions. This pattern was explained by their judgmental thinking, and their desire to avoid negative emotion and stay in control of the conversation. In a related study of leaders’ conversations, a considerable difference was found between the way educational leaders described their problem before and during the conversation with those involved (Sinnema et al., 2013 ). Prior to the conversation, privately, they tended to describe their problem as more serious and more urgent than they did in the conversation they held later with the person concerned.

One of the reasons for the mismatch between their private descriptions and public disclosures was the judgmental framing of their beliefs about the other party’s intentions, attitudes, and/or motivations (Peeters & Robinson, 2015 ). If leaders are not willing or able to reframe such privately-held beliefs in a more respectful manner, they will avoid addressing problems through fear of provoking negative emotion, and neither party will be able to critique the reasoning that leads to the belief in question (Robinson et al., 2020 ). When that happens, beliefs based on faulty reasoning may prevail, problem solutions may be based only on that which is discussable, and the problem may persist.

A model of effective problem-solving conversations

We present below a normative model of effective problem-solving conversations (Fig.  2 ) in which testing the validity of relevant beliefs plays a central role. Leaders test their beliefs about a problem when they draw on a set of validity testing behaviors and enact those behaviors, through their inquiry and advocacy, in ways that are consistent with the three interpersonal values included in the model. The model proposes that these processes increase the effectiveness of social problem solving, with effectiveness understood as progressing the task of solving the problem while maintaining or improving the leader’s relationship with those involved. In formulating this model, we drew on the previously discussed research on problem solving and theories of interpersonal and organisational effectiveness.

Model of effective problem-solving conversations

The role of beliefs in problem solving

Beliefs are important in the context of problem solving because they shape decisions about what constitutes a problem and how it can be explained and resolved. Beliefs link the object of the belief (e.g., a teacher’s planning) to some attribute (e.g., copied from the internet). In the context of school problems these attributes are usually tightly linked to a negative evaluation of the object of the belief (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975 ). Problem solving, therefore, requires explicit attention by leaders to the validity of the information on which their own and others’ beliefs are based. The model draws on the work of Mumford et al. ( 2000 ) by highlighting three types of beliefs that are central to how people solve problems—beliefs about whether and why a situation is problematic (we refer to these as problem description beliefs); beliefs about the precursors of the problem situation (we refer to these as problem explanation beliefs); and beliefs about strategies which could, would, or should improve the situation (we refer to these as problem solution beliefs). With regard to problem explanation beliefs, it is important that attention is not limited to surface level factors, but also encompasses consideration of deeper related issues in the broader social context and how they contribute to any given problem.

The role of values in problem-solving conversations

Figure  2 proposes that problem solving effectiveness is increased when leaders’ validity testing behaviors are consistent with three values—respecting the views of others, seeking to maximize validity of their own and others’ beliefs, and building internal commitment to decisions reached. The inclusion of these three values in the model means that our validity testing behaviors must be conceptualized and measured in ways that capture their interpersonal (respect and internal commitment) and epistemic (valid information) underpinnings. Without this conceptual underpinning, it is likely to be difficult to identify the validity testing behaviors that are associated with effectiveness. For example, the act of seeking agreement can be done in a coercive or a respectful manner, so it is important to define and measure this behavior in ways that distinguish between the two. How this and similar distinctions were accomplished is described in the subsequent section on the five validity testing behaviors.

The three values in Fig.  2 are based on the theories and practice of interpersonal and organizational effectiveness developed by Argyris and Schön ( 1974 , 1978 , 1996 ) and applied more recently in a range of educational leadership research contexts (Hannah et al., 2018 ; Patuawa et al., 2021 ; Sinnema et al., 2021a ). We have drawn on the work of Argyris and Schön because their theories explain the dilemma many leaders experience between the two components of problem solving effectiveness and indicate how that dilemma can be avoided or resolved.

Seeking to maximize the validity of information is important because leaders’ beliefs have powerful consequences for the lives and learning of teachers and students and can limit or support educational change efforts. Leaders who behave consistently with the validity of information value are truth seekers rather than truth claimers in that they are open-minded and thus more attentive to the information that disconfirms rather than confirms their beliefs. Rather than assuming the validity of their beliefs and trying to impose them on others, their stance is one of seeking to detect and correct errors in their own and others′ thinking (Robinson, 2017 ).

The value of respect is closely linked to the value of maximizing the validity of information. Leaders increase validity by listening carefully to the views of others, especially if those views differ from their own. Listening carefully requires the accordance of worth and respect, rather than private or public dismissal of views that diverge from or challenge one’s own. If leaders’ conversations are guided by the two values of valid information and respect, then the third value of fostering internal commitment is also likely to be present. Teachers become internally committed to courses of action when their concerns have been listened to and directly addressed as part of the problem-solving process.

The role of validity testing behaviors in problem solving

Figure  2 includes five behaviors designed to test the validity of the three types of belief involved in problem solving. They are: 1) disclosing beliefs; 2) providing grounds; 3) exploring difference; 4) examining logic; and 5) seeking agreement. These behaviors enable leaders to check the validity of their beliefs by engaging in open minded disclosure and discussion of their thinking. While these behaviors are most closely linked to the value of maximizing valid information, the values of respect and internal commitment are also involved in these behaviors. For example, it is respectful to honestly and clearly disclose one’s beliefs about a problem to the other person concerned (advocacy), and to do so in ways that make the grounds for the belief testable and open to revision. It is also respectful to combine advocacy of one’s own beliefs with inquiry into others’ reactions to those beliefs and with inquiry into their own beliefs. When leaders encounter doubts and disagreements, they build internal rather than external commitment by being open minded and genuinely interested in understanding the grounds for them (Spiegel, 2012 ). By listening to and responding directly to others’ concerns, they build internal commitment to the process and outcomes of the problem solving.

Advocacy and inquiry dimensions

Each of the five validity testing behaviors can take the form of a statement (advocacy) or a question (inquiry). A leader’s advocacy contributes to problem solving effectiveness when it communicates his or her beliefs and the grounds for them, in a manner that is consistent with the three values. Such disclosure enables others to understand and critically evaluate the leader’s thinking (Tompkins, 2013 ). Respectful inquiry is equally important, as it invites the other person into the conversation, builds the trust they need for frank disclosure of their views, and signals that diverse views are welcomed. Explicit inquiry for others’ views is particularly important when there is a power imbalance between the parties, and when silence suggests that some are reluctant to disclose their views. Across their careers, leaders tend to rely more heavily on advocating their own views than on genuinely inquiring into the views of others (Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ). It is the combination of advocacy and inquiry behaviors, that enables all parties to collaborate in formulating a more valid understanding of the nature of the problem and of how it may be solved.

The five validity testing behaviors

Disclosing beliefs is the first and most essential validity testing behavior because beliefs cannot be publicly tested, using the subsequent four behaviors, if they are not disclosed. This behavior includes leaders’ advocacy of their own beliefs and their inquiry into others’ beliefs, including reactions to their own beliefs (Peeters & Robinson, 2015 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ).

Honest and respectful disclosure ensures that all the information that is believed to be relevant to the problem, including that which might trigger an emotional reaction, is shared and available for validity testing (Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ; Tjosvold et al., 2005 ). Respectful disclosure has been linked with follower trust. The empirical work of Norman et al. ( 2010 ), for example, showed that leaders who disclose more, and are more transparent in their communication, instill higher levels of trust in those they work with.

Providing grounds , the second validity testing behavior, is concerned with leaders expressing their beliefs in a way that makes the reasoning that led to them testable (advocacy) and invites others to do the same (inquiry). When leaders clearly explain the grounds for their beliefs and invite the other party to critique their relevance or accuracy, the validity or otherwise of the belief becomes more apparent. Both advocacy and inquiry about the grounds for beliefs can lead to a strengthening, revision, or abandonment of the beliefs for either or both parties (Myran & Sutherland, 2016 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ).

Exploring difference is the third validity testing behavior. It is essential because two parties simply disclosing beliefs and the grounds for them is insufficient for arriving at a joint solution, particularly when such disclosure reveals that there are differences in beliefs about the accuracy and implications of the evidence or differences about the soundness of arguments. Exploring difference through advocacy is seen in such behaviors as identifying and signaling differing beliefs and evaluating contrary evidence that underpins those differing beliefs. An inquiry approach to exploring difference (Timperley & Parr, 2005 ) occurs when a leader inquires into the other party’s beliefs about difference, or their response to the leaders’ beliefs about difference.

Exploring differences in beliefs is key to increasing validity in problem solving efforts (Mumford et al., 2007 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Tjosvold et al., 2005 ) because it can lead to more integrative solutions and enhance the commitment from both parties to work with each other in the future (Tjosvold et al., 2005 ). Leaders who are able to engage with diverse beliefs are more likely to detect and challenge any faulty reasoning and consequently improve solution development (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015 ). In contrast, when leaders do not engage with different beliefs, either by not recognizing or by intentionally ignoring them, validity testing is more limited. Such disengagement may be the result of negative attributions about the other person, such as that they are resistant, stubborn, or lazy. Such attributions reduce opportunities for the rigorous public testing that is afforded by the exchange and critical examination of competing views.

Examining logic , the fourth validity testing behavior, highlights the importance of devising a solution that adequately addresses the nature of the problem at hand and its causes. To develop an effective solution both parties must be able to evaluate the logic that links problems to their assumed causes and solutions. This behavior is present when the leader suggests or critiques the relationship between possible causes of and solutions to the identified problem. In its inquiry form, the leader seeks such information from the other party. As Zaccaro et al. ( 2000 ) explain, good problem solvers have skills and expertise in selecting the information to attend to in their effort to “understand the parameters of problems and therefore the dimensions and characteristics of a likely solution” (p. 44–45). These characteristics may include solution timeframes, resource capacities, an emphasis on organizational versus personal goals, and navigation of the degree of risk allowed by the problem approach. Explicitly exploring beliefs is key to ensuring the logic linking problem causes and any proposed solution. Taking account of a potentially complex set of contributing factors when crafting logical solutions, and testing the validity of beliefs about them, is likely to support effective problem solving. This requires what Copland ( 2010 ) describes as a creative process with similarities to clinical reasoning in medicine, in which “the initial framing of the problem is fundamental to the development of a useful solution” (p. 587).

Seeking agreement , the fifth validity testing behavior, signals the importance of warranted agreement about problem beliefs. We use the term ‘warranted’ to make clear that the goal is not merely getting the other party to agree (either that something is a problem, that a particular cause is involved, or that particular actions should be carried out to solve it)—mere agreement is insufficient. Rather, the goal is for warranted agreement whereby both parties have explored and critiqued the beliefs (and their grounds) of the other party in ways that provide a strong basis for the agreement. Both parties must come to some form of agreement on beliefs because successful solution implementation occurs in a social context, in that it relies on the commitment of all parties to carry it out (Mumford et al., 2000 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Tjosvold et al., 2005 ). Where full agreement does not occur, the parties must at least be clear about where agreement/disagreement lies and why.

Testing the validity of beliefs using these five behaviors, and underpinned by the values described earlier is, we argue, necessary if conversations are to lead to two types of improvement—progress on the task (i.e., solving the problem) and improving the relationship between those involved in the conversation (i.e., ensuring those relationship between the problem-solvers is intact and enhanced through the process). We draw attention here to those improvement purposes as distinct from those underpinning work in the educational leadership field that takes a neo-managerialist perspective. The rise of neo-managerialism is argued to redefine school management and leadership along managerial lines and hence contribute to schools that are inequitable, reductionist, and inauthentic (Thrupp & Willmott, 2003 ). School leaders, when impacted by neo-managerialism, need to be (and are seen as) “self-interested, opportunistic innovators and risk-takers who exploit information and situations to produce radical change.” In contrast, the model we propose rejects self-interest. Our model emphasizes on deep respect for the views of others and the relentless pursuit of genuine shared commitment to understanding and solving problems that impact on children and young people through collaborative engagement in joint problem solving. Rather than permitting leaders to exploit others, our model requires leaders to be adept at using both inquiry and advocacy together with listening to both progress the task (solving problems) and simultaneously enhance the relationship between those involved. We position this model of social problem solving effectiveness as a tool for addressing social justice concerns—it intentionally dismisses problem solving approaches that privilege organizational efficiency indicators and ignore the wellbeing of learners and issues of inequity, racism, bias, and social injustice within and beyond educational contexts.

Methodology

The following section outlines the purpose of the study, the participants, and the mixed methods approach to data collection and analysis.

Research purpose

Our prior qualitative research (Robinson et al., 2020 ) involving in-depth case studies of three educational leaders revealed problematic patterns in leaders’ approach to problem-solving conversations: little disclosure of causal beliefs, little public testing of beliefs that might trigger negative emotions, and agreement on solutions that were misaligned with causal beliefs. The present investigation sought to understand if a quantitative methodological approach would reveal similar patterns and examine the relationship between belief types and leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors. Thus, our overarching research question was: to what extent do leaders test the validity of their beliefs in conversations with those directly involved in the analysis and resolution of the problem? Our argument is that while new experiences might motivate change in beliefs (Bonner et al., 2020 ), new insights gained through testing the validity of beliefs is also imperative to change. The sub-questions were:

What is the relative frequency in the types of beliefs leaders hold about problems involving others?

To what extent do leaders employ validity testing behaviors in conversations about those problems?

Are there differential patterns in leaders’ validity testing of the different belief types?

Participants

The participants were 43 students in a graduate course on educational leadership in New Zealand who identified an important on the job problem that they intended to discuss with the person directly involved.

The mixed methods approach

The study took a mixed methods approach using a partially mixed sequential equal status design; (QUAL → QUAN) (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009 ). The five stages of sourcing and analyzing data and making interpretations are summarised in Fig.  3 below and outlined in more detail in the following sections (with reference in brackets to the numbered phases in the figure). We describe the study as partially mixed because, as Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009 explain, in partially mixed methods “both the quantitative and qualitative elements are conducted either concurrently or sequentially in their entirety before being mixed at the data interpretation stage” (p. 267).

Overview of mixed methods approach

Stage 1: Qualitative data collection

Three data sources were used to reveal participants’ beliefs about the problem they were seeking to address. The first source was their response to nine open ended items in a questionnaire focused on a real problem the participant had attempted to address but that still required attention (1a). The items were about: the nature and history of the problem; its importance; their own and others’ contribution to it; the causes of the problem; and the approach to and effectiveness of prior attempts to resolve it.

The second source (1b) was the transcript of a real conversation (typically between 5 and 10 minutes duration) the leaders held with the other person involved in the problem, and the third was the leaders’ own annotations of their unspoken thoughts and feelings during the course of the conversation (1c). The transcription was placed in the right-hand column (RHC) of a split page with the annotations recorded at the appropriate place in the left-hand column (LHC). The LHC method was originally developed by Argyris and Schön ( 1974 ) as a way of examining discrepancies between people’s espoused and enacted interpersonal values. Referring to data about each leader’s behavior (as recorded in the transcript of the conversation) and their thoughts (as indicated in the LHC) was important since the model specifies validity testing behaviors that are motivated by the values of respect, valid information, and internal commitment. Since motives cannot be revealed by speech alone, we also needed access to the thoughts that drove their behavior, hence our use of the LHC data collection technique. This approach allowed us to respond to Leithwood and Stager’s ( 1989 ) criticism that much research on effective problem solving gives results that “reveal little or nothing about how actions were selected or created and treat the administrator’s mind as a ‘black box’” (p. 127).

Stage 2: Qualitative analysis

The three stages of qualitative analysis focused on identifying discrete beliefs in the three qualitative data sources, distilling those discrete beliefs into key beliefs, and identifying leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors.

Stage 2a: Analyzing types of beliefs about problems

For this stage, we developed and applied coding rules (see Table 1 ) for the identification of the three types of beliefs in the three sources described earlier—leaders’ questionnaire responses, conversation transcript (RHC), and unexpressed thoughts (LHC). We identified 903 discrete beliefs (utterances or thoughts) from the 43 transcripts, annotations, and questionnaires and recorded these on a spreadsheet (2a). While our model proposes that leaders’ inquiry will surface and test the beliefs of others, we quantify in this study only the leaders’ beliefs.

Stage 2b: Distilling discrete beliefs into key beliefs

Next, we distilled the 903 discrete beliefs into key beliefs (KBs) (2b). This was a complex process and involved multiple iterations across the research team to determine, check, and test the coding rules. The final set of rules for distilling key beliefs were:

Beliefs should be made more succinct in the key belief statement, and key words should be retained as much as possible

Judgment quality (i.e., negative or positive) of the belief needs to be retained in the key belief

Key beliefs should use overarching terms where possible

The meaning and the object of the belief need to stay constant in the key belief

When reducing overlap, the key idea of both beliefs need to be captured in the key beliefs

Distinctive beliefs need to be summarized on their own and not combined with other beliefs

The subject of the belief must be retained in the key belief—own belief versus restated belief of other

All belief statements must be accounted for in key beliefs

These rules were applied to the process of distilling multiple related beliefs into statements of key beliefs as illustrated by the example in the table below (Table 2 ).

Further examples of how the rules were applied are outlined in ' Appendix A '. The number of discrete beliefs for each leader ranged from 7 to 35, with an average of 21, and the number of key beliefs for each leader ranged between 4 and 14, with an average of eight key beliefs. Frequency counts were used to identify any patterns in the types of key beliefs which were held privately (not revealed in the conversation but signalled in the left hand column or questionnaire) or conveyed publicly (in conversation with the other party).

Stage 2c: Analyzing leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors

We then developed and applied coding rules for the five validity testing behaviors (VTB) outlined in our model (disclosing beliefs, providing grounds, exploring difference, examining logic, and seeking agreement). Separate rules were established for the inquiry and advocacy aspects of each VTB, generating ten coding rules in all (Table 3 ).

These rules, summarised in the table below, and outlined more fully in ' Appendix A ', encompassed inclusion and exclusion criteria for the advocacy and inquiry dimensions of each validity testing behavior. For example, the inclusion rule for the VTB of ‘Disclosing Beliefs’ required leaders to disclose their beliefs about the nature, and/or causes, and/or possible solutions to the problem, in ways that were consistent with the three values included in the model. The associated exclusion rule signalled that this criterion was not met if, for example, the leader asked a question in order to steer the other person toward their own views without having ever disclosed their own views, or if they distorted the urgency or seriousness of the problem related to what they had expressed privately. The exclusion rules also noted how thoughts expressed in the left hand column would exclude the verbal utterance from being treated as disclosure—for example if there were contradictions between the right hand (spoken) and left hand column (thoughts), or if the thoughts indicated that the disclosure had been distorted in order to minimise negative emotion.

The coding rules reflected the values of respect and internal commitment in addition to the valid information value that was foregrounded in the analysis. The emphasis on inquiry, for example (into others’ beliefs and/or responses to the beliefs already expressed by the leader), recognised that internal commitment would be impossible if the other party held contrary views that had not been disclosed and discussed. Similarly, the focus on leaders advocating their beliefs, grounds for those beliefs and views about the logic linking solutions to problem causes recognise that it is respectful to make those transparent to another party rather than impose a solution in the absence of such disclosure.

The coding rules were applied to all 43 transcripts and the qualitative analysis was carried out using NVivo 10. A random sample of 10% of the utterances coded to a VTB category was checked independently by two members of the research team following the initial analysis by a third member. Any discrepancies in the coding were resolved, and data were recoded if needed. Descriptive analyses then enabled us to compare the frequency of leaders’ use of the five validity testing behaviors.

Stage 3: Data transformation: From qualitative to quantitative data

We carried out transformation of our data set (Burke et al., 2004 ), from qualitative to quantitative, to allow us to carry out statistical analysis to answer our research questions. The databases that resulted from our data transformation, with text from the qualitative coding along with numeric codes, are detailed next. In database 1, key beliefs were all entered as cases with indications in adjacent columns as to the belief type category they related to, and the source/s of the belief (questionnaire, transcript or unspoken thoughts/feelings). A unique identifier was created for each key belief.

In database 2, each utterance identified as meeting the VTB coding rules were entered in column 1. The broader context of the utterance from the original transcript was then examined to establish the type of belief (description, explanation, or solution) the VTB was being applied to, with this recorded numerically alongside the VTB utterance itself. For example, the following utterance had been coded to indicate that it met the ‘providing grounds’ coding rule, and in this phase it was also coded to indicate that it was in relation to a ‘problem description’ belief type:

“I noticed on the feedback form that a number of students, if I’ve got the numbers right here, um, seven out of ten students in your class said that you don’t normally start the lesson with a ‘Do Now’ or a starter activity.” (case 21)

A third database listed all of the unique identifiers for each leader’s key beliefs (KB) in the first column. Subsequent columns were set up for each of the 10 validity testing codes (the five validity testing behaviors for both inquiry and advocacy). The NVivo coding for the VTBs was then examined, one piece of coding at a time, to identify which key belief the utterance was associated with. Each cell that intersected the appropriate key belief and VTB was increased by one as a VTB utterance was associated with a key belief. Our database included variables for both the frequency of each VTB (the number of instances the behavior was used) and a parallel version with just a dichotomous variable indicating the presence or absence or each VTB. The dichotomous variable was used for our subsequent analysis because multiple utterances indicating a certain validity testing behavior were not deemed to necessarily constitute better quality belief validity testing than one utterance.

Stage 4: Quantitative analysis

The first phase of quantitative analysis involved the calculation of frequency counts for the three belief types (4a). Next, frequencies were calculated for the five validity testing behaviors, and for those behaviors in relation to each belief type (4b).

The final and most complex stage of the quantitative analysis, stages 4c through 4f, involved looking for patterns across the two sets of data created through the prior analyses (belief type and validity testing behaviors) to investigate whether leaders might be more inclined to use certain validity testing behaviors in conjunction with a particular belief type.

Stage 4a: Analyzing for relationships between belief type and VTB

We investigated the relationship between belief type and VTB, first, for all key beliefs. Given initial findings about variability in the frequency of the VTBs, we chose not to use all five VTBs separately in our analysis, but rather the three categories of: 1) None (key beliefs that had no VTB applied to them); 2) VTB—Routine (the sum of VTBs 1 and 2; given those were much more prevalent than others in the case of both advocacy and inquiry); and 3) VTB—Robust (the sum of the VTBs 3, 4 and 5 given these were all much less prevalent than VTBs 1 and 2, again including both advocacy and/or inquiry). Cross tabs were prepared and a chi-square test of independence was performed on the data from all 331 key beliefs.

Stage 4b: Analyzing for relationships between belief type and VTB

Next, because more than half (54.7%, 181) of the 331 key beliefs were not tested by leaders using any one of the VTBs, we analyzed a sub-set of the database, selecting only those key beliefs where leaders had disclosed the belief (using advocacy and/or inquiry). The reason for this was to ensure that any relationships established statistically were not unduly influenced by the data collection procedure which limited the time for the conversation to 10 minutes, during which it would not be feasible to fully disclose and address all key beliefs held by the leader. For this subset we prepared cross tabs and carried out chi-square tests of independence for the 145 key beliefs that leaders had disclosed. We again investigated the relationship between key belief type and VTBs, this time using a VTB variable with two categories: 1) More routine only and 2) More routine and robust.

Stage 4c: Analyzing for relationships between belief type and advocacy/inquiry dimensions of validity testing

Next, we investigated the relationship between key belief type and the advocacy and inquiry dimensions of validity testing. This analysis was to provide insight into whether leaders might be more or less inclined to use certain VTBs for certain types of belief. Specifically, we compared the frequency of utterances about beliefs of all three types for the categories of 1) No advocacy or inquiry, 2) Advocacy only, 3) Inquiry only, and 4) Advocacy and inquiry (4e). Cross tabs were prepared, and a chi-square test of independence was performed on the data from all 331 key beliefs. Finally, we again worked with the subset of 145 key beliefs that had been disclosed, comparing the frequency of utterances coded to 1) Advocacy or inquiry only, or 2) Both advocacy and inquiry (4f).

Below, we highlight findings in relation to the research questions guiding our analysis about: the relative frequency in the types of beliefs leaders hold about problems involving others; the extent to which leaders employ validity testing behaviors in conversations about those problems; and differential patterns in leaders’ validity testing of the different belief types. We make our interpretations based on the statistical analysis and draw on insights from the qualitative analysis to illustrate those results.

Belief types

Leaders’ key beliefs about the problem were evenly distributed between the three belief types, suggesting that when they think about a problem, leaders think, though not necessarily in a systematic way, about the nature of, explanation for, and solutions to their problem (see Table 4 ). These numbers include beliefs that were communicated and also those recorded privately in the questionnaire or in writing on the conversation transcripts.

Patterns in validity testing

The majority of the 331 key beliefs (54.7%, 181) were not tested by leaders using any one of the VTBs, not even the behavior of disclosing the belief. Our analysis of the VTBs that leaders did use (see Table 5 ) shows the wide variation in frequency of use with some, arguably the more robust ones, hardly used at all.

The first pattern was more frequent disclosure of key beliefs than provision of the grounds for them. The lower levels of providing grounds is concerning because it has implications for the likelihood of those in the conversation subsequently reaching agreement and being able to develop solutions logically aligned to the problem (VTB4). The logical solution if it is the time that guided reading takes that is preventing a teacher doing ‘shared book reading’ (as Leader 20 believed to be the case) is quite different to the solution that is logical if in fact the reason is something different, for example uncertainty about how to go about ‘shared book reading’, lack of shared book resources, or a misunderstanding that school policy requires greater time on shared reading.

The second pattern was a tendency for leaders to advocate much more than they inquire— there was more than double the proportion of advocacy than inquiry overall and for some behaviors the difference between advocacy and inquiry was up to seven times greater. This suggests that leaders were more comfortable disclosing their own beliefs, providing the grounds for their own beliefs and expressing their own assumptions about agreement, and less comfortable in inquiring in ways that created space and invited the other person in the conversation to reveal their beliefs.

A third pattern revealed in this analysis was the difference in the ratio of inquiry to advocacy between VTB1 (disclosing beliefs)—a ratio of close to 1:2 and VTB2 (providing grounds)—a ratio of close to 1:7. Leaders are more likely to seek others’ reactions when they disclose their beliefs than when they give their grounds for those beliefs. This might suggest that leaders assume the validity of their own beliefs (and therefore do not see the need to inquire into grounds) or that they do not have the skills to share the grounds associated with the beliefs they hold.

Fourthly, there was an absence of attention to three of the VTBs outlined in our model—in only very few of the 329 validity testing utterances the 43 leaders used were they exploring difference (11 instances), examining logic (4 instances) or seeking agreement (22 instances). In Case 22, for example, the leader claimed that learning intentions should be displayed and understood by children and expressed concern that the teacher was not displaying them, and that her students thus did not understand the purpose of the activities they were doing. While the teacher signaled her disagreement with both of those claims—“I do learning intentions, it’s all in my modelling books I can show them to you if you want” and “I think the children know why they are learning what they are learning”—the fact that there were differences in their beliefs was not explicitly signaled, and the differences were not explored. The conversation went on, with each continuing to assume the accuracy of their own beliefs. They were unable to reach agreement on a solution to the problem because they had not established and explored the lack of agreement about the nature of the problem itself. We presume from these findings, and from our prior qualitative work in this field, that those VTBs are much more difficult, and therefore much less likely to be used than the behaviors of disclosing beliefs and providing grounds.

The relationship between belief type and validity testing behaviors

The relationship between belief type and category of validity testing behavior was significant ( Χ 2 (4) = 61.96,  p  < 0.001). It was notable that problem explanation beliefs were far less likely than problem description or problem solution beliefs to be subject to any validity testing (the validity of more than 80% of PEBs was not tested) and, when they were tested, it was typically with the more routine rather than robust VTBs (see Table 6 ).

Problem explanation beliefs were also most likely to not be tested at all; more than 80% of the problem explanation beliefs were not the focus of any validity testing. Further, problem description beliefs were less likely than problem solution beliefs to be the target of both routine and robust validity testing behaviors—12% of PDBs and 18% of PSBs were tested using both routine and robust VTBs.

Two important assumptions underpin the study reported here. The first is that problems of equity must be solved, not only in the macrosystem and exosystem, but also as they occur in the day to day practices of leaders and teachers in micro and mesosystems. The second is that conversations are the key practice in which problem solving occurs in the micro and mesosystems, and that is why we focused on conversation quality. We focused on validity testing as an indicator of quality by closely analyzing transcripts of conversations between 43 individual leaders and a teacher they were discussing problems with.

Our findings suggest a considerable gap between our normative model of effective problem solving conversations and the practices of our sample of leaders. While beliefs about what problems are, and proposed solutions to them are shared relatively often, rarely is attention given to beliefs about the causes of problems. Further, while leaders do seem to be able to disclose and provide grounds for their beliefs about problems, they do so less often for beliefs about problem cause than other belief types. In addition, the critical validity testing behaviors of exploring difference, examining logic, and seeking agreement are very rare. Learning how to test the validity of beliefs is, therefore, a relevant focus for educational leaders’ goals (Bendikson et al., 2020 ; Meyer et al., 2019 ; Sinnema & Robinson, 2012 ) as well as a means for achieving other goals.

The patterns we found are problematic from the point of view of problem solving in schools generally but are particularly problematic from the point of view of macrosystem problems relating to equity. In New Zealand, for example, the underachievement and attendance issues of Pasifika students is a macrosystem problem that has been the target of many attempts to address through a range of policies and initiatives. Those efforts include a Pasifika Education Plan (Ministry of Education, 2013 ) and a cultural competencies framework for teachers of Pasifika learners—‘Tapasa’ (Ministry of Education, 2018 ) At the level of the mesosystem, many schools have strategic plans and school-wide programmes for interactions seeking to address those issues.

Resolving such equity issues demands that macro and exosystem initiatives are also reflected in the interactions of educators—hence our investigation of leaders’ problem-solving conversations and attention to whether leaders have the skills required to solve problems in conversations that contribute to aspirations in the exo and macrosystem, include of excellence and equity in new and demanding national curricula (Sinnema et al., 2020a ; Sinnema, Stoll, 2020a ). An example of an exosystem framework—the competencies framework for teachers of Pacific students in New Zealand—is useful here. It requires that teachers “establish and maintain collaborative and respectful relationships and professional behaviors that enhance learning and wellbeing for Pasifika learners” (Ministry of Education, 2018 , p. 12). The success of this national framework is influenced by and also influences the success that leaders in school settings have at solving problems in the conversations they have about related micro and mesosystem problems.

To illustrate this point, we draw here on the example of one case from our sample that showed how problem-solving conversation capability is related to the success or otherwise of system level aspirations of this type. In the case of Leader 36, under-developed skill in problem solving talk likely stymied the success of the equity-focused system initiatives. Leader 36 had been alerted by the parents of a Pasifika student that their daughter “feels that she is being unfairly treated, picked on and being made to feel very uncomfortable in the teacher’s class.” In the conversation with Leader 36, the teacher described having established a good relationship with the student, but also having had a range of issues with her including that she was too talkative, that led the teacher to treat her in ways the teacher acknowledged could have made her feel picked on and consequently reluctant to come to school.

The teacher also told the leader that there were issues with uniform irregularities (which the teacher picked on) and general non conformity—“No, she doesn’t [conform]. She often comes with improper footwear, incorrect jacket, comes late to school, she puts make up on, there are quite a few things that aren’t going on correctly….”. The teacher suggested that the student was “drawing the wrong type of attention from me as a teacher, which has had a negative effect on her.” The teacher described to the leader a recent incident:

[The student] had come to class with her hair looking quite shabby so I quietly asked [the student] “Did you wake up late this morning?” and then she but I can’t remember, I made a comment like “it looks like you didn’t take too much interest in yourself.” To me, I thought there was nothing wrong with the comment as it did not happen publicly; it happened in class and I had walked up to her. Following that, [her] Mum sends another email about girls and image and [says] that I am picking on her again. I’m quite baffled as to what is happening here. (case 36)

This troubling example represented a critical discretionary moment. The pattern of belief validity testing identified through our analysis of this case (see Table 7 ), however, mirrors some of the patterns evident in the wider sample.

The leader, like the student’s parents, believed that the teacher had been offensive in her communication with the student and also that the relationship between the teacher and student would be negatively impacted as a result. These two problem description beliefs were disclosed by the leader during her conversation with the teacher. However, while her disclosure of her belief about the problem description involved both advocating the belief, and inquiring into the other’s perception of it, the provision of grounds for the belief involved advocacy only. She reported the basis of the concern (the email from the student’s parents about their daughter feeling unfairly treated, picked on, and uncomfortable in class) but did not explicitly inquire into the grounds. This may be explained in this case through the teacher offering her own account of the situation that matched the parent’s report. Leader 36 also disclosed in her conversation with the teacher, her problem solution key belief that they should hold a restorative meeting between the teacher, the student, and herself.

What Leader 36 did not disclose was her belief about the explanation for the problem—that the teacher did not adequately understand the student personally, or their culture. The problem explanation belief (KB4) that she did inquire into was one the teacher raised—suggesting that the student has “compliance issues” that led the teacher to respond negatively to the student’s communication style—and that the teacher agreed with. The leader did not use any of the more robust but important validity testing behaviors for any of the key beliefs they held, either about problem description, explanation or solutions. And most importantly, this conversation highlights how policies and initiatives developed by those in the macrosystem, aimed at addressing equity issues, can be thwarted through well-intentioned but ultimately unsuccessful efforts of educators as they operate in the micro and mesosystem in what we referred to earlier as a discretionary problem solving space. The teacher’s treatment of the Pasifika student in our example was in stark contrast to the respectful and strong relationships demanded by the exosystem policy, the framework for teachers of Pasifika students. Furthermore, while the leader recognized the problem, issues of culture were avoided—they were not skilled enough in disclosing and testing their beliefs in the course of the conversation to contribute to broader equity concerns. The skill gap resonates with the findings of much prior work in this field (Le Fevre et al., 2015 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ; Sinnema et al., 2013 ; Smith, 1997 ; Spillane et al., 2009 ; Timperley & Robinson, 1998 ; Zaccaro et al., 2000 ), and highlights the importance of leaders, and those working with them in leadership development efforts, to recognize the interactions between the eco-systems outlined in the nested model of problem solving detailed in Fig.  1 .

The reluctance of Leader 36 to disclose and discuss her belief that the teacher misunderstands the student and her culture is important given the wider research evidence about the nature of the beliefs teachers may hold about indigenous and minority learners. The expectations teachers hold for these groups are typically lower and more negative than for white students (Gay, 2005 ; Meissel et al., 2017 ). In evidence from the New Zealand context, Turner et al. ( 2015 ), for example, found expectations to differ according to ethnicity with higher expectations for Asian and European students than for Māori and Pasifika students, even when controlling for achievement, due to troubling teacher beliefs about students’ home backgrounds, motivations, and aspirations. These are just the kind of beliefs that leaders must be able to confront in conversations with their teachers.

We use this example to illustrate both the interrelatedness of problems across the ecosystem, and the urgency of leadership development intervention in this area. Our normative model of effective problem solving conversations (Fig.  2 ), we suggest, provides a useful framework for the design of educational leadership intervention in this area. It shows how validity testing behaviors should embody both advocacy and inquiry and be used to explore not only perceptions of problem descriptions and solutions, but also problem causes. In this way, we hope to offer insights into how the dilemma between trust and accountability (Ehren et al., 2020 ) might be solved through increased interpersonal effectiveness. The combination of inquiry with advocacy also marks this approach out from neo-liberal approaches that emphasize leaders staying in control and predominantly advocating authoritarian perspectives of educational leadership. The interpersonal effectiveness theory that we draw on (Argyris & Schön, 1974 ) positions such unilateral control as ineffective, arguing for a mutual learning alternative. The work of problem solving is, we argue, joint work, requiring shared commitment and control.

Our findings also call for more research explicitly designed to investigate linkages between the systems. Case studies are needed, of macro and exosystem inequity problems backward mapped to initiatives and interactions that occur in schools related to those problems and initiatives. Such research could capture the complex ways in which power plays out “in relation to structural inequalities (of class, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, sexuality, and so forth)” and in relation to “more shifting and fluid inequalities that play out at the symbolic and cultural levels (for example, in ways that construct who “has” potential)” (Burke & Whitty, 2018 , p. 274).

Leadership development in problem solving should be approached in ways that surface and test the validity of leaders’ beliefs, so that they similarly learn to surface and test others’ beliefs in their leadership work. That is important not only from a workforce development point of view, but also from a social justice point of view since leaders’ capabilities in this area are inextricably linked to the success of educational systems in tackling urgent equity concerns.

Allison, D., & Allison, P. (1993). Both ends of a telescope: Experience and expertise in principal problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29 (3), 302–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x93029003005

Article   Google Scholar  

Argyris, C., Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness . Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice . Addison-Wesley.

Google Scholar  

Ball, D. L. (2018). Just dreams and imperatives: the power of teaching in the struggle for public education . New York, NYC: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Bedell-Avers, E., Hunter, S., & Mumford, M. (2008). Conditions of problem-solving and the performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: A comparative experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19 , 89–106.

Bendikson, L., Broadwith, M., Zhu, T., & Meyer, F. (2020). Goal pursuit practices in high schools: hitting the target?. Journal of Educational Administration , 56 (6), 713–728. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2020-0020

Bonner, S. M., Diehl, K., & Trachtman, R. (2020). Teacher belief and agency development in bringing change to scale. Journal of Educational Change, 21 (2), 363–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09360-4

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta, Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues. Jessica Kingsley Publishers

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32 (7), 513–531.

Burke Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research; a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14–26.

Burke, P. J., & Whitty, G. (2018). Equity issues in teaching and teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 93 (3), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2018.1449800

Copland, F. (2010). Causes of tension in post-observation feedback in pre-service teacher training: An alternative view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (3), 466–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.001

Ehren, M., Paterson, A., & Baxter, J. (2020). Accountability and Trust: Two sides of the same coin? Journal of Educational Change, 21 (1), 183–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09352-4

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief An Introduction to Theory and Research. Attitude, Intention and Behavior . Addison-Wesley.

Gay, G. (2005). Politics of multicultural teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56 (3), 221–228.

Goldring, E., Cravens, X., Murphy, J., Porter, A., Elliott, S., & Carson, B. (2009). The evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban disrticts assess leadership? The Elementary School Journal, 110 (1), 19–36.

Hannah, D., Sinnema, C., & Robinson. V. (2018). Theory of action accounts of problem-solving: How a Japanese school communicates student incidents to parents. Management in Education, 33 (2), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020618783809 .

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world . Harvard Business Press.

Le Fevre, D., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2015). The interpersonal challenges of instructional leadership: Principals’ effectiveness in conversations about performance issues. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51 (1), 58–95.

Le Fevre, D., Robinson, V. M. J., & Sinnema, C. (2015). Genuine inquiry: Widely espoused yet rarely enacted. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43 (6), 883–899.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43 (2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1995). Expert problem solving: Evidence from school and district leaders . State University of New York Press.

Leithwood, K., & Stager, M. (1989). Expertise in Principals’ Problem Solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25 (2), 126–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x89025002003

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1992). Improving the problem solving expertise of school administrators. Education and Urban Society, 24 (3), 317–345.

Marcy, R., & Mumford, M. (2010). Leader cognition: Improving leader performance through causal analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (1), 1–19.

Mavrogordato, M., & White, R. (2020). Leveraging policy implementation for social justice: How school leaders shape educational opportunity when implementing policy for English learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56 (1), 3–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18821364

Meissel, K., Meyer, F., Yao, E. S., & Rubie-Davies, C. (2017). Subjectivity of Teacher Judgments: Exploring student characteristics that influence teacher judgments of student ability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65 , 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.021

Meyer, F., Sinnema, C., & Patuawa, J. (2019). Novice principals setting goals for school improvement in New Zealand. School Leadership & Management , 39 (2), 198−221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1473358

Ministry of Education. (2013). Pasifika education plan 2013–2017 Retrieved 9 July from https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Strategies-and-policies/PEPImplementationPlan20132017V2.pdf

Ministry of Education. (2018). Tapasā cultural competencies framework for teachers of Pacific learners . Ministry of Education.

Mumford, M., & Connelly, M. (1991). Leaders as creators: Leaders performance and problem solving in ill-defined domains. Leadership Quarterly, 2 (4), 289–315.

Mumford, M., Friedrich, T., Caughron, J., & Byrne, C. (2007). Leader cognition in real-world settings: How do leaders think about crises? The Leadership Quarterly, 18 , 515–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.002

Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S., Harding, F., Jacobs, T., & Fleishman, E. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (1), 11–35.

Myran, S., & Sutherland, I. (2016). Problem posing in leadership education: using case study to foster more effective problem solving. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 19 (4), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458916664763

Newell, A., & Simon. (1972). Human problem solving . Prentice-Hall.

Norman, S., Avolio, B., & Luthans, B. (2010). The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 , 350–364.

Patuawa, J., Robinson, V., Sinnema, C., & Zhu, T. (2021). Addressing inequity and underachievement: Middle leaders’ effectiveness in problem solving. Leading and Managing , 27 (1), 51–78. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.925220205986712

Peeters, A., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2015). A teacher educator learns how to learn from mistakes: Single and double-loop learning for facilitators of in-service teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 11 (3), 213–227.

Robinson, V. M. J., Meyer, F., Le Fevre, D., & Sinnema, C. (2020). The Quality of Leaders’ Problem-Solving Conversations: truth-seeking or truth-claiming? Leadership and Policy in Schools , 1–22.

Robinson, V. M. J. (1993). Problem-based methodology: Research for the improvement of practice . Pergamon Press.

Robinson, V. M. J. (1995). Organisational learning as organisational problem-solving. Leading & Managing, 1 (1), 63–78.

Robinson, V. M. J. (2001). Organizational learning, organizational problem solving and models of mind. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Kluwer Academic.

Robinson, V. M. J. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities: Empirical findings and methodological challenges. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9 (1), 1–26.

Robinson, V. M. J. (2017). Reduce change to increase improvement . Corwin Press.

Robinson, V. M. J., & Le Fevre, D. (2011). Principals’ capability in challenging conversations: The case of parental complaints. Journal of Educational Administration, 49 (3), 227–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111129046

Sinnema, C., Robinson, V. (2012). Goal setting in principal evaluation: Goal quality and predictors of achievement. Leadership and Policy in schools . 11 (2), 135–167, https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2011.629767

Sinnema, C., Le Fevre, D., Robinson, V. M. J., & Pope, D. (2013). When others’ performance just isn’t good enough: Educational leaders’ framing of concerns in private and public. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12 (4), 301–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2013.857419

Sinnema, C., Ludlow, L. H., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2016a). Educational leadership effectiveness: A rasch analysis. Journal of Educational Administration , 54 (3), 305–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-12-2014-0140

Sinnema, C., Meyer, F., & Aitken, G. (2016b). Capturing the complex, situated, and sctive nature of teaching through inquiry-oriented standards for teaching. Journal of Teacher Education , 68 (1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116668017

Sinnema, C., Daly, A. J., Liou, Y.-h Sinnema, C., Daly, A. J., Liou, Y.-H., & Rodway, J. (2020a). Exploring the communities of learning policy in New Zealand using social network analysis: A case study of leadership, expertise, and networks. International Journal of Educational Research , 99 , 101492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.10.002

Sinnema, C., & Stoll, L. (2020b). Learning for and realising curriculum aspirations through schools as learning organisations. European Journal of Education, 55 , 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12381

Sinnema, C., Nieveen, N., & Priestley, M. (2020c). Successful futures, successful curriculum: What can Wales learn from international curriculum reforms? The Curriculum Journal . https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.17

Sinnema, C., Hannah, D., Finnerty, A., & Daly, A. J. (2021a). A theory of action account of within and across school collaboration: The role of relational trust in collaboration actions and impacts. Journal of Educational Change .

Sinnema, C., Hannah, D., Finnerty, A. et al. (2021b). A theory of action account of an across-school collaboration policy in practice. Journal of Educational Change . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09408-w

Sinnema, C., Liou, Y.-H., Daly, A., Cann, R., & Rodway, J. (2021c). When seekers reap rewards and providers pay a price: The role of relationships and discussion in improving practice in a community of learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107 , 103474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103474

Smith, G. (1997). Managerial problem solving: A problem-centered approach. In C. E. Zsambok & G. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic Decision Making (pp. 371–380). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spiegel, J. (2012). Open-mindedness and intellectual humility. School Field, 10 (1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878512437472

Spillane, J., Weitz White, K., & Stephan, J. (2009). School principal expertise: Putting expert aspiring principal differences in problem solving to the test. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8 , 128–151.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13 , 12–28.

Thrupp, M., & Willmott, R. (2003). Education management in managerialist times: Beyond the textual apologists . Open University Press.

Timperley, H., & Parr, J. M. (2005). Theory competition and the process of change. Journal of Educational Change, 6 (3), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-005-5065-3

Timperley, H. S., & Robinson, V. M. J. (1998). Collegiality in schools: Its nature and implications for problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34 (1), 608–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X980341003

Tjosvold, D., Sun, H., & Wan, P. (2005). Effects of openness, problem solving, and blaming on learning: An experiment in China. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145 (6), 629–644. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.145.6.629-644

Tompkins, T. (2013). Groupthink and the Ladder of Inference : Increasing Effective Decision Making. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning , 8 (2), 84–90.

Turner, H., Rubie-Davies, C. M., & Webber, M. (2015). Teacher expectations, ethnicity and the achievement gap. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50 (1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-015-0004-1

Zaccaro, S., Mumford, M., Connelly, M., Marks, M., & Gilbert, J. (2000). Assessment of leader problem-solving capabilities. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (1), 37–64.

Zand, D. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 , 229–239.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Claire Sinnema, Frauke Meyer, Deidre Le Fevre, Hamish Chalmers & Viviane Robinson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Sinnema .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

See Table 8 .

See Table 9 .

See Table 10 .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sinnema, C., Meyer, F., Le Fevre, D. et al. Educational leaders’ problem-solving for educational improvement: Belief validity testing in conversations. J Educ Change 24 , 133–181 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09437-z

Download citation

Accepted : 29 August 2021

Published : 01 October 2021

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09437-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Educational Change
• Educational improvement
• Problem solving
• Problem-solving conversations
• Educational leadership
• Validity testing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Ideas for Action
• Join the MAHB
• Why Join the MAHB?
• Current Associates
• Current Nodes
• What is the MAHB?
• Who is the MAHB?
• Acknowledgments

Problems, Problem Solving, and Education: An Inquiry into “Convention” as a Problem and What We Might Do About It

| April 21, 2024 | Leave a Comment

Digits.co.uk Images, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons. https://www.digits.co.uk/

Item Link: Access the Resource

File: Download

Date of Publication: March 6

Year of Publication: 2024

Publication City: Bethlehem, PA

Publisher: The Mother's Service Society

Author(s): Susan G. Clark

Journal: Cadmus

Adequately responding to our deteriorating environmental and social situation is a matter of increasing urgency. An obstacle to achieving a concerted response is the way that we have normalized “convention,” or as some authors claim “thoughtless convention.” The author takes on this obstacle (i.e., convention, thoughtlessness) as the primary subject of this paper. We all live in the everyday, averaged-off way things are done, understood, and thought about in our respective cultures (this is convention). Problems are typically framed, embodied, and emplaced from within convention using a “metaphysics of control and mastery or dominance” over the biophysical world. Conventionally, this is the doctrine of scientific positivism mixed with neoliberal capitalistic economics. It plays out in complex ways with consequences. Too often, this approach blocks what should count as our appropriate relationship (“sustainability,” coexistence) with the world, including nonhuman life.

Accepting convention (status quo), which is very widely accepted, absolves us from thinking too deeply or looking at ourselves and our problems. This doctrine keeps us in a certain kind of dialectic of the “practical,” concrete, and literal. In turn, this translates into the present social and political organization of our culture, problem-solving heuristics, and academic curriculums. As a deeply rooted psychological mindset and way to frame problems, convention serves as an existential coping mechanism to avoid examination of self and culture, actual problems, and a way to reject promising alternatives, especially integrative functional approaches. Perhaps convention is so widespread because of these evolutionary/psychological dynamics and because there are so many problems—personal to global—that we do not understand or know how to address. Consequently, it is extremely hard to even question the pervasive conventional framing of our situation and current entrenched thought and operations. Fortunately, some people move beyond convention integrating conventional and functional understandings to address problems. An integrative standpoint looks for connections, relationships, and systems properties across social processes and decision-making. It offers a way to orient to problems more reliably than convention allows.

Frameworks exist for integration that have proven helpful. As an inquiry into convention, the author looks at our contemporary problems, our evolutionary history, problem-solving, the academy, and education, and offers a brief overview. Recommendations are about (1) helping people, leaders, and institutions, (2) learning integrative concepts and operations for effectively orienting to problems, functionally in realistic and pragmatic ways, and, (3) developing education in the academy to upskill students and address problems. The future, our global solidarity, and any global movements to address problems will depend on the  learning and transformations we can bring about.

Read the full paper here or download it from the link above.

• Current Students
• Online Only Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Parents & Family
• Alumni & Friends
• Community & Business
• Student Life
• Coles College of Business
• Michael J Coles
• Hall of Fame
• Building Bold Connections Podcast
• Rankings & Distinctions
• AACSB Accreditation Information
• Faculty and Staff
• Center for Student Success
• Academic Advising
• Education Abroad
• Internships & Co-ops
• School of Accountancy
• Michael A. Leven School of Management, Entrepreneurship and Hospitality
• Department of Economics, Finance & Quantitative Analysis
• Department of Information Systems and Security
• Department of Marketing & Professional Sales
• Undergraduate

Executive Education

• All-Access Business Series
• Lessons in Leadership
• Tetley Distinguished Leader Lecture Series

• Degrees & Programs
• Executive Education Home
• Applied Coaching for Leaders Program
• Certified Mergers & Acquisitions Professional Program
• Coaching for Managers and Leaders

Executive Leadership Program for Managers and Directors

Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Program

Executive Education FLEX

• Post-Master's Executive Certificate in Business Research Methods

Upcoming Certificate Programs and Workshops

The Executive Education Center at the Coles College of Business is dedicated to helping you and your organization succeed. As one of the country’s most innovative universities in teaching and learning, we design executive development programs using best practices in program customization, technology-enhanced learning and on-the-job application. Our classroom-based certificate programs and our digital badge mobile-learning programs are designed to help you reach your fullest potential as leaders, innovators and change-makers.

Certified Mergers & Acquisitions Professional (CMAP) Program

The next cohort begins March 19, 2024

A popular certificate program in partnership with the M&A Source. Larry Stevens, CPA, after a long and distinguished career with PwC leads the program. Topics include M&A strategy, process planning, due diligence, financial analysis, transaction valuation, deal structuring, and negotiations.

The next cohort begins on January 25, 2024

A leadership development certificate program that integrates the best practices of classroom action-learning and gamified mobile-learning. The Michael J. Coles College of Business offers an Executive Leadership Program for Managers and Directors designed for busy professionals who want to take their leadership skills and their careers to the next level. Learn how to master the 8 leader roles and the 24 leadership skills.

The next cohort begins on April 22, 2024

Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Program: Designed for those with little or no prior experience in Continuous Improvement, this program is an introduction to the tools and techniques of Lean and the DMAIC methodology of Six Sigma. DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control) is a data-driven problem-solving approach that can be applied across all industries. Lean is the waste reduction tools and principles made famous by Toyota. LSS Green Belt participants learn the framework for solving problems and improving processes in a variety of hands-on projects and activities. During the program, participants will complete at least 3 LSS projects and leave the program with the tools needed to solve real world problems.

Busy working professionals need flexible learning options. Introducing   KSU Executive Education Flex . 100% online, anytime, anywhere. Our courses are available on laptops, tablets, or smartphones giving you the flexibility to learn on your schedule.

• Customer Centricity
• Fundamentals of Professional Selling
• Leadership Excellence

Contact Info

Kennesaw Campus 1000 Chastain Road Kennesaw, GA 30144

Marietta Campus 1100 South Marietta Pkwy Marietta, GA 30060

Campus Maps

Phone 470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

kennesaw.edu/info

Media Resources

Resources For

Related Links

• Financial Aid
• Degrees, Majors & Programs
• Job Opportunities
• Campus Security
• Global Education
• Sustainability
• Accessibility

470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

© 2024 Kennesaw State University. All Rights Reserved.

• Privacy Statement
• Accreditation
• Emergency Information
• Report a Concern
• Open Records
• Human Trafficking Notice

Barriers to Effective Problem Solving

Learning how to effectively solve problems is difficult and takes time and continual adaptation. There are several common barriers to successful CPS, including:

• Confirmation Bias: The tendency to only search for or interpret information that confirms a person’s existing ideas. People misinterpret or disregard data that doesn’t align with their beliefs.
• Mental Set: People’s inclination to solve problems using the same tactics they have used to solve problems in the past. While this can sometimes be a useful strategy (see Analogical Thinking in a later section), it often limits inventiveness and creativity.
• Functional Fixedness: This is another form of narrow thinking, where people become “stuck” thinking in a certain way and are unable to be flexible or change perspective.
• Unnecessary Constraints: When people are overwhelmed with a problem, they can invent and impose additional limits on solution avenues. To avoid doing this, maintain a structured, level-headed approach to evaluating causes, effects, and potential solutions.
• Groupthink: Be wary of the tendency for group members to agree with each other — this might be out of conflict avoidance, path of least resistance, or fear of speaking up. While this agreeableness might make meetings run smoothly, it can actually stunt creativity and idea generation, therefore limiting the success of your chosen solution.
• Irrelevant Information: The tendency to pile on multiple problems and factors that may not even be related to the challenge at hand. This can cloud the team’s ability to find direct, targeted solutions.
• Paradigm Blindness : This is found in people who are unwilling to adapt or change their worldview, outlook on a particular problem, or typical way of processing information. This can erode the effectiveness of problem solving techniques because they are not aware of the narrowness of their thinking, and therefore cannot think or act outside of their comfort zone.

According to Jaffa, the primary barrier of effective problem solving is rigidity. “The most common things people say are, ‘We’ve never done it before,’ or ‘We’ve always done it this way.’” While these feelings are natural, Jaffa explains that this rigid thinking actually precludes teams from identifying creative, inventive solutions that result in the greatest benefit. “The biggest barrier to creative problem solving is a lack of awareness – and commitment to – training employees in state-of-the-art creative problem-solving techniques,” Mattimore explains. “We teach our clients how to use ideation techniques (as many as two-dozen different creative thinking techniques) to help them generate more and better ideas. Ideation techniques use specific and customized stimuli, or ‘thought triggers’ to inspire new thinking and new ideas.” MacLeod adds that ineffective or rushed leadership is another common culprit. “We're always in a rush to fix quickly,” she says. “Sometimes leaders just solve problems themselves, making unilateral decisions to save time. But the investment is well worth it — leaders will have less on their plates if they can teach and eventually trust the team to resolve. Teams feel empowered and engagement and investment increases.”

Image Courtesy of Pexels.  

Leading in Health Systems Activating Transformational Change

Related programs, health care quality improvement: from design to implementation, innovation with ai in health care, leadership development to advance equity in health care, related articles, the importance of meta-leadership during the covid-19 crisis, leadership development (infographic), the implementation gap: using artificial intelligence to help patients in clinical practices, may 15 – 17, 2024.

Harvard Longwood Campus, Boston, MA

Highly engaging and insightful teachers that provide powerful frameworks and skill sets in the art of meta-leadership, conflict resolution and negotiation.

• —Evangelos Loukas, DO
• Associate Chief, Division of Hospital Medicine, Northwell Health

Program Overview

• Objectives & Highlights

Credits and Logistics

Who should attend, a high-impact health care leadership development program.

Health systems face enormous challenges in an era of ongoing transformation. Pressures to improve outcomes, expand access, manage attrition, and control costs continue to mount as populations age and technologies advance. Leading in Health Systems: Activating Transformational Change equips current and future health system leaders with strategic perspective and leadership skills to navigate this dynamic environment.

Today, leaders must think and lead differently. You need to think broadly and drive action, with both conflict resolution and negotiation skills to build stakeholder buy-in, even beyond your organization. Being an effective health care leader during and after a crisis requires you to engage stakeholders across your system and often influence people over whom you have no formal authority.

The faculty for Leading in Health Systems: Activating Transformational Change will draw on decades of experience of engagement with health care professionals and field research on crisis situations, including the pandemic. Through this frame, you will learn proven, pragmatic frameworks, tools, and techniques developed by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health faculty for bringing together partners with opposing points-of-view, uncovering shared interests, and forging unity of effort.

Leadership, Conflict Resolution, and Negotiation Skills in Health Care

This course will develop your ability to lead effectively in health care now—and in the face of changes to come. If you, like many others, are selected for an executive position based on your clinical expertise or individual contributions, you will find leadership to be the missing specialty in your preparation. With the health care system consolidating, merging, integrating, and changing, you need focused leadership training to meet interpersonal, system, and problem-solving challenges. Leading in Health Systems: Activating Transformational Change will help you recognize emerging opportunities and threats, engage diverse stakeholders, allocate scarce resources, make more effective decisions, and shape change in your organization.

By intentionally connecting and leveraging diverse talents and assets, you increase the likelihood of achieving and sustaining positive outcomes. At this continuing education course, you will develop proficiency in meta-leadership and the Walk in the Woods–distinctive frameworks and practice methods for leadership and complex problem solving not found in other executive education programs.

Take the Next Step in Your Career Evolution with the Executive Leadership in Health Care Certificate of Specialization  

Leading in Health Systems is one of the nine programs eligible for the Executive Leadership in Health Care Certificate of Specialization , which is specially designed for those who desire to learn how to excel at managing and leading groups in a health care setting. The Certificate consists of three* programs—offered both online and on-site in Boston, MA—designed and taught by Harvard Faculty and prominent health care leaders to prepare you for the future of an ever-changing health care industry.

For more information, visit our Executive Leadership in Health Care Certificate of Specialization page .

*Program for Chairs of Clinical Services and Leadership Development for Physicians in Academic Health Centers each count as two programs towards the certificate.

What is Meta-Leadership?

Meta-leadership is a conceptually rigorous and field-tested framework to enable you to foster innovation, anticipate change, and address dynamic, complex, and risk-laden challenges. It helps you close the gap between great idea and great execution. Meta-leadership equips you to effectively lead down to your team, up to your boss, across to your peers, and beyond your organization to other stakeholders.

The meta-leadership framework draws from research in leadership, health care, conflict management, neuroscience, negotiation, and emergency management. It provides an action-oriented tool set that you will be able to deploy right away. The program emphasis is on making you a more effective leader from day one back on the job.

In this seminar, you will learn from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health faculty members who developed the meta-leadership method for building enterprise-wide connectivity of effort; the Walk in the Woods model for complex problem solving and interest-based negotiation; and the swarm intelligence strategy for building collaboration during times of crisis. They together are authors of Renegotiating Health Care: Resolving Conflict to Build Collaboration, Second Edition .

At this program, you will:  

• Learn to lead your team in a way that considers new realities in the current and post-pandemic era health care system  
• Develop strategies to manage employees that have more power—and who will leave if they are dissatisfied  
• Recalibrate your leadership style where trauma has changed the workplace dynamic between you and your team  
• Learn methods to exercise influence well beyond your authority, extending your reach and engaging otherwise uninvolved stakeholders  
• The unknown is one of a leader’s biggest worries—learn how to navigate around potential issues facing today’s health care workplaces   
• Gain tools of emotional intelligence to discipline yourself and others to best identify priorities and lead effectively, no matter what you rank or position within your organization  
• Understand you and your team members’ risk profiles to balance and integrate different perspectives  
• Sharpen your vision and capacity to link, leverage, and forge connectivity of effort, shaping themes and purposes to improve your organization’s position in the ever-changing health care marketplace  

Objectives & Highlights

Learning objectives.

• Effectively lead and motivate the full range of stakeholders in your health care system
• Increase your leadership impact by extending influence beyond your authority
• Get ahead of the decision and action curve to guide and direct a wide range of followers
• Improve personal and organizational ability to negotiate, resolve conflict, and solve complex problems
• Hone your vision and capacity to link and leverage people and resources to achieve shared goals
• Build robust system connectivity by applying the emerging insights in “swarm leadership”
• Instill and inspire leadership as a core competency throughout your system

Program Highlights

• Highly interactive learning through a provocative leadership laboratory designed to disrupt and challenge
• Cutting-edge curriculum that takes on the opportunities and predicaments of a changing health care system
• Pragmatic and tested set of meta-leadership tools and strategies to further develop your skill set and career
• Proactively address systemic productivity issues and build unity of effort using innovative problem-solving methods
• Reap value with topics, tools, and techniques immediately useful at your organization

Please note: a laptop or other portable personal computing device is strongly recommended for course enrollees.

Accommodations

Book Online

The hotel is approximately 1 mile from the program location and they also provide a shuttle bus to the Longwood Medical Area.

A limited number of rooms have been reserved at a reduced rate until April 23, 2024 . These rooms are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Please be advised that hotels in the Boston area can sell out very quickly. We recommend making your hotel reservation as soon as you receive registration and payment confirmation. Please mention group code Leading in Health Systems and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health to receive the special rate.

Program Check-in

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health FXB Building 651 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 617.432.2100

The program takes place at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, located in the heart of the Harvard Longwood Campus in Boston. Public transportation is also readily available to the city’s many shopping districts, museums, and restaurants.

For directions, please click here .

Continuing Education Credit

The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health designates this live activity for a maximum of 15 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits ™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health will grant 1.5 Continuing Education Units (CEUs) for this program, equivalent to 15 contact hours of education. Participants can apply these contact hours toward other professional education accrediting organizations.

All credits subject to final agenda.

All participants will receive a Certificate of Participation upon completion of the program.

Current faculty, subject to change.

Leonard J. Marcus, PhD

Program director.

Eric J. McNulty, MA

All Times are Eastern Time (ET).

This agenda is subject to change.

This program is designed to meet the interpersonal, system, and problem solving challenges now required for career advancement. Participants are leaders and those ready to assume leadership positions from across the health care system, including:

• Chief administrative officers
• Chief executive officers
• Chief medical officers
• Chief nursing officers
• Clinical department chairs
• Clinical division chiefs
• Clinical service directors
• Deans of academic medical centers
• Executive directors
• Group practice administrators
• Health insurance executives
• Health policy advisors
• Medical directors
• Nurses and nurse leaders
• Physicians and physician leaders
• Vice presidents

• Programme Finder
• Portal login

Problem Solving and Decision Making for Executives

Programme snapshot.

• Date: 13 November, 2024 (6 days over 3 weeks)
• Fee: NGN 450,000.00
• Location: LBS Campus

Learning Objectives and Benefits

Who should attend, structure and curriculum, admission process, testimonials, upcoming sessions and contact.

 Drag for more 

• Learning Objectives & Benefits
• Structure & Curriculum

Looking for more programmes? Use our Programme Finder

At the heart of every decision is the desire to solve a problem, whether defined in terms of a deficiency or an opportunity. Executives and leaders generally, are made or broken by the decisions / choices they make or fail to make. A World Economic Forum article (2016) on the Future of Jobs lists complex problem solving, critical thinking and decision making as three of the top ten skills required to function in the workplace by the year 2025.

Formal economic models of decision-making often begin with the assumption that we are inclined to make choices that leave us as well off as possible. However, research and experience suggest that we often make choices that seem opposed to our best interests or at best are suboptimal. Why?

It is important to understand that problem-solving and decision-making is a two dimensional phenomenon.  It is rational, methodical, analytical, effortful, on one hand and on the other affective, instinctive, intuitive and automatic. In essence, problem solving and decision making is about how we think. To make more optimal choices, we must understand how these dimensions interact especially in time bound and uncertain contexts.

This seminar will expose participants to information as well as tools geared towards developing thinking capabilities and complex problem solving and decision making skills suitable for peculiar contexts.

At the end of this programme, participants would have:

• Developed a strategy for handling complex problem situations
• Learned how to handle / use information correctly
• Learned to handle cognitive limitations that plague the decision-making process
• Learned to think according to defined parameters and frameworks that aid optimal decision making
• Honed their thinking capabilities to accommodate novel, non-routine decision situations
• Learned when and how to engage participatory decision making

The Problem Solving and Decision Making programme is designed for senior managers / leaders with varying levels of decision-making responsibilities. Participants will generally have considerable work experience in any field and will have come to a point where they realise the need to hone their problem solving and decision-making skills. Past participants have been drawn from various sectors including the financial service, FMCG, telecommunications and faith-based organisations.

The psychology of Decision Making

• Personality and decision making
• Cognitive biases and decision making
• Judgment & decision making

Decision Making as a Process

• Decision Making as a process
• Solving complex problems
• Gathering intelligence
• Analytical thinking for decision making

People and context in Decision Making

• Group Dynamics and the Decision Making process
• Communicating decisions to different stakeholders

Dealing with uncertainty and the constraint of time

1. Click on the Apply Now tab 2. Select the number of participants to enroll on the programme 3. Fill in your details to complete your application 4. Request for an invoice or make an instant payment via our secured payment gateway 5. Upon confirmation of payment, a programme manager will get in touch with you at least three days before the programme commences.

Dr Yetunde Anibaba,

Judith Okonkwo

Got questions?

Send us a quick message, stating your questions or concerns about this programme and expect a response in a few minutes.

© 2024 Lagos Business School. All Rights Reserved.

Click one of our contacts below to chat on WhatsApp

Social Chat is free, download and try it now here!

Vinci PODOLEANU

Turin Campus Admissions +39 338 888 7331

Executive Certificate Problem Solving and Decision Making

Next session

8 - 10 July 2024

Language of instruction

Where you study

• Programmes & Training
• Certificates and Short Programmes
• Problem Solving and Decision Making

Executive Certificate Problem Solving and Decision Making A few days to go through what people experience in years with a company

This course focuses on business skills that are relevant for any job, in any industry and in any organisation. Independent from their working experience, “Problem Solving & Decision Making” will provide valuable input to the participants’ existing foundation for future growth in their professional careers.

PSDM aims to support the learning of a structured work method so that participants can:

• learn how to solve problems independently
• experience how to work in teams
• get the fundamentals of finance
• practise decision-making techniques and tools
• conduct interviews
• structure presentations
• develop communication skills

Challenge yourself and embark on a fascinating journey of discovery

Starting from a real case and analysing it in depth, you will be presented with and solve problems, taking on your own decision responsibilities. This is a way to grow quickly, practically and effectively.

A strategic approach to problem solving, to put yourself to the test with real situations

• analysing and defining the situation;
• structuring and prioritising the problem, using logic trees, issue analysis and pyramid thinking;
• synthesising appropriate conclusions and recommendations to different stakeholders

How to take responsibility for your actions and decisions in front of a group: choosing, arguing, presenting

Participants will experience and learn how to leverage on a structured decision-making process, focusing on how to choose between comparable alternatives.

The redundancy of information on the case will allow for the use of techniques on how to collect information, select pieces of it and prioritise.

In the final part of the programme, participants will be asked to synthesise the solutions into memorable messages and to present them to a tough audience in an effective way.

Teamwork: a valuable resource to learn independent decision making

80% of the programme will have participants working in groups, experiencing the challenges and advantages of teamwork and learning relevant high-performance techniques on the field.

Testimonial

Sylvian Qui Sourcing & Procurement Specialist CARIOCA S.p.a.

" I chose ESCP's PSDM Certificate due to its unique approach, which offers practical applicability in everyday life beyond the confines of one's job. This course has significantly enhanced my independence and decision-making skills, enabling me to make prompt choices. Today, I bear significant responsibilities within my company for which I am held accountable. I highly recommend this course and am considering continuing my educational journey at ESCP. "

Your Host Vittorio de Pedys Affiliate Professor - Turin Finance

Vittorio de Pedys , graduate with honours and laude in 1985 in Economics, is Affiliate Professor of Finance and Management since 2006 at ESCP Turin Campus. He teaches all modules of Finance from Fundamentals of Finance to Corporate Finance to Mergers and Acquisitions at EMBA, MIM, and MBA courses. With ESCP he teaches Finance topics extensively at Executive Custom education for several corporations. For ESCP he also teaches courses of problem Solving and Decision making.

€4,500 (3-day course)

Early Bird Fee

Enrolling by 30th April 2024 €4,300 (3-day course)

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Educating Executive Function

Executive functions are thinking skills that assist with reasoning, planning, problem solving, and managing one’s life. The brain areas that underlie these skills are interconnected with and influenced by activity in many different brain areas, some of which are associated with emotion and stress. One consequence of the stress-specific connections is that executive functions, which help us to organize our thinking, tend to be disrupted when stimulation is too high and we are stressed out, or too low when we are bored and lethargic. Given their central role in reasoning and also in managing stress and emotion, scientists have conducted studies, primarily with adults, to determine whether executive functions can be improved by training. By and large, results have shown that they can be, in part through computer-based videogame-like activities. Evidence of wider, more general benefits from such computer-based training, however, is mixed. Accordingly, scientists have reasoned that training will have wider benefits if it is implemented early, with very young children as the neural circuitry of executive functions is developing, and that it will be most effective if embedded in children’s everyday activities. Evidence produced by this research, however, is also mixed. In sum, much remains to be learned about executive function training. Without question, however, continued research on this important topic will yield valuable information about cognitive development.

INTRODUCTION

The term executive function encompasses cognitive abilities that enable us to hold information in mind in working memory, to inhibit highly automatic responses to stimulation, and to shift the focus of attention between related but distinct aspects of a given task or problem. Executive, or cognitive control abilities, allow us to inhibit ingrained behaviors, to focus attention strategically, and to organize our thoughts in the face of distraction, complexity, and stress. Like many aspects of cognitive ability, executive functions are useful in many different situations. Unfortunately, however, they also degrade rapidly under stress and pressure. If only we should all be so lucky to be as cool, calm, and collected as James Bond as he decides which wires to clip to defuse a nuclear bomb threatening to destroy civilization as its timer rapidly counts down to zero. If we could hang on to our thinking skills in the face of complexity and stress, in the face of pressure at work and in relationships, seemingly the world would be a better place and our lives would be more fulfilling (or at least we wouldn’t get blown to bits). More realistically, we might inhibit impulses that get us into trouble, that lead us down rocky paths and into bad decisions that bring problems, sickness, and even death. On the more positive side, we might do better in school and in work, routinely avoid bad situations and encounters, and feel generally good about the choices we make. Of course, there are situations in life in which it is far better to respond quickly without thinking about things, such as when hitting the brakes when the car in front of us stops suddenly in traffic. It is also possible to ‘over think’ or ruminate on a given situation or topic in ways that can impair our wellbeing and our ability to take action. For most aspects of daily life, however, executive functions are more help than hindrance.

Fortunately, like many aspects of cognitive ability, executive functions tend to get better the more we practice them. The big questions are how much better and what kind of practice? Although seemingly the stuff of fiction, the possibility that we can develop executive function skills through training is a tantalizing and scientifically realistic possibility; but how can we do this in a way that will lead to some lasting and broadly applicable benefits? The answer is complex and, for the most part, currently unknown. There are, however, some good indicators of what an answer might look like and the types of benefits this might bring to ourselves and our society.

NEUROSCIENCE

To begin, it is useful to consider some basic neurobiology. The brain areas associated with the thinking skills that make up executive functions – working memory, inhibitory control, flexible shifting of attention – are primarily ‘located’ in what is known as prefrontal cortex (PFC). The neural circuits that support these skills, however, involve numerous brain regions, including areas of cingulate cortex and parietal cortex as well as subcortical structures, primarily the basal ganglia, amygdala, and hippocampus. In brief, specific networks of brain areas are active when we engage executive functions. These ares work together in an interconnected network to solve complex problems and help us reason about things. Most importantly for present purposes, some of the brain areas that are interconnected with PFC and make up the neural networks that support executive functions are part of the brain’s limbic system; particularly the amygdala. The limbic brain registers the emotional and motivational significance of things—events, persons, places, tasks, etc. Relatively rapid and automatic signaling from the limbic brain to the PFC helps to direct our attention and thinking skills to things that are meaningful to us and away from things that have less meaning. In a word, the interconnected limbic-to-PFC circuitry (or corticolimbic connectivity if you want to impress your friends) underlies goal-directed purposeful actions, from rare actions (as in, defuse the bomb before it blows up) to daily activities (plan your day, solve a crossword puzzle, stop yourself from absent mindedly crossing the street against the light).

The interconnected limbic-to-PFC circuitry functions as a feedback loop. As the PFC receives input from the limbic brain, it feeds back on the limbic brain to modulate its input. In fact, the system is thought to work over short time periods to maintain a moderate level of input. That is, signaling from the limbic brain to the higher brain is in the form of neurotransmitters—dopamine, norepinephrine, the glucocorticoid hormone cortisol— that stimulate or more precisely modulate neural activity in the PFC brain areas that underlie executive functions 1 . When the increase in neurotransmitters/modulators is in a moderate range, PFC neural activity is strong and executive functions are working well. When the increase is too great, indicating that the person is under stress or over stimulated, or too low, indicating boredom and lethargy, then activity in PFC, and consequently the valuable thinking skills that this activity supports, is reduced.

BRAIN DEVELOPMENT AND EXECUTIVE FUNCTION SKILLS TRAINING

Given the general principle of brain function and development, namely that “cells that fire together, wire together” (the idea that much of the brain’s circuitry and strength of connectivity is shaped over time by experience; what is referred to as use-dependent activity), it is reasonable to expect that an individual might strengthen his or her executive function skills by strengthening the neural circuitry that underlies these skills. By repeatedly practicing executive function types of tasks, one would repeatedly activate the PFC-to-limbic brain neural circuitry (as well as PFC connectivity throughout the brain related to the task at hand). Presumably such repeated practice, as long as it did not become too boring and repetitive and remained moderately challenging, would strengthen the top down control from PFC to limbic brain, as well as other brain areas, leading to better control of emotional responses to situations and to a cooler, calmer, more collected self. Such a scenario is plausible and some evidence suggests that this might be the case. Individuals practicing a specific type of executive function skill, namely, working memory, over 6-8 weeks about 45mins per day get better at holding information in working memory and demonstrate changes in brain activity and even brain structure in relevant brain areas consistent with the increase in performance 2 . Primarily these activities are videogame-like activities that include things like remembering a series of locations, altering one’s actions in response to specific contextual cues, and overriding automatic responses. There is now a good body of evidence that repeated practice of executive skills (attention skills also) can be enhanced by practice in specific types of videogames and related types of activities 3 - 5 .

An important question, however, is whether the improvements in these skills will translate into gains that generalize across a variety of situations and behaviors. This generalizability question is a complicated one and looms large in this area of research. The question is whether training merely leads the individual to become better on the trained task and on similar types of tasks, something known as near transfer. The alternative is far transfer, where training leads to more widespread benefits, that is, gains that matter in the real world like becoming better at controlling one’s emotions or getting better at some higher-level skill such as math. Evidence pertaining to this key question is mixed. Some studies indicate that training improves the control of behavior and attention for children with ADHD 6 . Some evidence also exists for other disorders (see Morrison & Chein 5 ). Other studies, however, suggest that at best, near transfer is most frequently seen. One particularly interesting study with young adults demonstrated that working memory training led to improvements on a specific type of intelligence test that requires reasoning about matrices 7 . The idea here was that if intelligence and reasoning improved with training then perhaps many other things with which intelligence and reasoning are associated would also improve. Although the authors of that study did not look at broader underlying mental abilities beyond matrix reasoning, other similar studies with younger children have and demonstrate some benefits to broader abilities such as reading comprehension and mathematics that would be associated with general reasoning ability 8 , 9 . Findings are far from definitive, however, and much remains to be done in this important area of research 10 . Methodologically speaking, there are many ways in which current studies could be improved. Some of these improvements are relatively straightforward, such as increasing sample size, while others are more complex, such as developing experimental manipulations to control for alternative, competing explanations for effects, such as social interaction 11 , 12 .

EXPANDING THE PLAYING FIELD

Given pressing issues of generalizability, two overarching principles of psychological development would seem to readily come into play. One is the “earlier is better” principle and the other is the ecological validity principle. The earlier is better principle suggests that efforts at training and building executive function skills will be most effective when PFC and other brain areas, including limbic brain areas, are developing rapidly in childhood as executive functions are first emerging. Given that neural networks are less specialized and differentiated in infancy and early childhood, the idea is that they will be more amenable to the effects of training. The second, and related, principle, ecological validity, suggests that in addition to starting early, incorporating the training exercises into things that we want kids to become better at, such as learning things in school, should be most effective. This principle reflects the common sense idea that if we want training to help people in their everyday lives, then training should take place in the contexts in which individuals are typically situated, such as school and work. Realistically, what good is such training if it only improves performance on specific executive function assessments?

With respect to the earlier is better principle, there is some evidence to suggest that earlier actually is better. Starting as young as infancy, some enterprising researchers have shown that training attention skills through structured computerized presentations of information can support the development of attention and provide a foundation for later executive functions 13 , 14 . There are longitudinal data indicating that attention in infancy is a great predictor of later mental ability 15 , 16 , so training attention early to improve executive function makes good sense. As with the findings of training effects on the measure of intelligence in young adults, however, it may be that any observed positive effects would only be on superficial aspects of a given executive function task rather than broader underlying mental abilities. Longitudinal data are needed to determine whether starting early in life to train executive function skills through computer-based training of attention might lead to meaningful longer-term gains.

Related to the second principle, the ecological validity principle, why not start training early but do it in the context of preschool and kindergarten? Given that executive function skills support reasoning and problem solving, they are very useful in the classroom. Executive function training would assist students in learning new information in a context that would likely lead to high generalizability (or at least be very useful). But how to do this? Despite its appeal, playing videogames for part of the day in the classroom, on its own disconnected from other activities, would not seem to be a good idea (sorry kids.) Some insightful curriculum specialists, however, have been way ahead of the curve in this regard. Several years ago, these specialists recognized the power of structured play to encourage the development of complex thinking skills in young children. This is thought to occur primarily through the ability of structured play to encourage children to plan ahead and to reflect on their behavior, in a word, to be self-directed and, hence, self-regulated. Many experts consider the development of self-regulation skills, of which executive functions are the crown jewel, to be the most important objective of high quality preschool — to help children focus attention, be emotionally expressive, not be impulsive, and to engage in purposeful and meaningful interactions with caregivers and other children.

The use of child-directed, structured play and classroom activities are characteristic of Montessori education and of a program known as Tools of the Mind. Tools of the Mind and Montessori are thought to promote executive functions by providing children with opportunities for self-direction in choosing and completing learning activities. The programs are also thought to promote executive function skills by having children work collaboratively in ways that require each child to take the perspective of his or her partner. In addition, Tools of the Mind uses structured play and most importantly the planning of play in advance to encourage reflection and thereby the development of executive function skills.

Evaluations of Tools of the Mind and Montessori and similar educational approaches have been generally favorable, suggesting that they do indeed help young children build their executive function skills and to learn more quickly. For example, a ‘randomized’ (lottery system) evaluation of Montessori education indicated benefits to children’s executive functions as well as to academic achievement and play behavior 17 . Similarly, a recent randomized controlled trial evaluation of the Tools of the Mind program with children in kindergarten demonstrated benefits to executive functions and academic abilities as well as the ability to control attention in the face of emotionally arousing images 18 . These results followed RCT evaluations of the program with preschoolers, one of which found benefits to executive function skills 19 with some evidence of academic benefits (Barnett et al., 2008) while another found no effects of Tools of the Mind on any aspect of child ability 20 . A third evaluation of the preschool program is now underway and is showing effects of the program on executive functions and academic abilities. In theory, by fostering the development of self-regulation, high quality preschool and early elementary education is understood to assist children in making sense of and building on the academic types of information that they will increasingly be exposed to throughout their school careers. Too much of an academic focus in early education without sufficient support for a strong foundation in self-regulation is ultimately self-defeating and likely to lead to worse, not better, school outcomes for children.

In addition to structured play, another approach to fostering executive functions is mindfulness meditation. Although not specific to school, this approach can and often is practiced by school children. Research on mindfulness meditation in adults indicates that mediation for even a short time improves attention and executive functions 21 . Educators and researchers are developing interesting techniques for assisting young children in meditating with some promising findings suggesting that the techniques are working 22 . Some of the best evidence for the effects of mindfulness meditation on executive functions comes from research with young adults. That research has shown not only effects on behavioral measures of executive functions but also on brain activity and connectivity in the limbic brain to higher brain PFC circuitry 23 . These effects suggest that although earlier may be better, it is perhaps never too late (or at least better late than never.) Research findings suggesting effects of training on executive functions in adults hold the very interesting possibility that we all might improve our well being and our job performance, interpersonal relationships, and so on through executive function training of one type or another, be it mindfulness meditation or videogame playing, or something else entirely. Perhaps recognition of the potential for change and the power to control one’s thinking skills – that effort matters more than ability – is enough to lead people to give it a try. It’s certainly something worth thinking about.

A number of studies with children and adults have shown that executive function skills -- particularly working memory — can be improved. The idea that we can increase our executive function abilities in ways that matter in our daily lives is less well established but would seem to be a realistic possibility. There have been very rapid advances in a relatively short period of time in the scientific understanding of executive functions and of how the brain works in general. It would seem likely that issues related to near and far transfer of executive function training will be resolved in the not too distant future and that executive function training will begin to make its way into a variety of activities, including educational and vocational training. An important aspect of progress in this research and its application, however, will be to pay close attention to how and under what circumstances training is actually effective and resulting in lasting gains. It is perhaps very easy to sell the idea that playing some sort of videogame, just like taking some sort of pill, might actually make one smarter and improve one’s life. If history and prior scientific evidence are any guide, however, genuine increases in ability are only likely to come through sustained and ongoing practice and persistence in things that matter to us most.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Preparation of this manuscript was supported by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grants R01HD51502 and P01HD39667 and Institute of Education Sciences grants R305A100058 and R324A120033.

FURTHER READING

Bodrova, E. & Leong, D.J. (2007). Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education. New York: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Fuster, J. M. (2008). The prefrontal cortex. 4th Edition. Burlington MA: Academic Press.

Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Is working memory training effective? Psychological Bulletin, 138, 628-654.

• Apply to UMaine

Center for Undergraduate Research

CUGR Announces Summer 2024 EPIC Fellowship Awardees

The University of Maine’s Center for Undergraduate Research (CUGR) is pleased to announce Summer 2024 EPIC fellowship winners. 

Experiential Programs Innovation Central (EPIC) aspires to provide integrated experiential learning and high-impact, student-centered education opportunities through hands-on exposure to research practices, emerging technologies, design thinking, interdisciplinary experiences, and innovative problem-solving.  

Students interested in pursuing any CUGR fellowship are encouraged to enroll in the EPIC course, INT 125, to support their preparation for undergraduate research beyond the classroom in any discipline.  To learn more, visit umaine.edu/epic. 

Recipients of the EPIC fellowship will receive $4,000 to put towards their research and experiential learning project. 

This year’s recipients are: 

• Robert Atwater , Engineering Physics, “Characterizing the Effects of Defect Doping on BaTiO3,” advised by Nicholas Bingham
• Jenna Cox , Psychology, “The Friendship Machine: Fast Friends And Its Effects Across Time In a University Setting,” advised by Jordan LaBouff
• Katie Davison , Communication Sciences and Disorders and Sociology, “Exploring Social-Communication, Health, and Educational Experiences of Children with Brain Injury,” advised by Jessica Riccardi
• Myles Harrison , Finance and Financial Economics, “A Maine Equity Index: How Have Maine Stocks Fared Over Time? Performance and Characteristics,” advised by Sebastian Lobe
• Matthew Patterson , New Media and Computer Science, “Our ClassXRoom,” advised by Justin Dimmel
• Arrow Smith , Anthropology and English, “Anonymity in Public Space Graffiti: Gender Differences in Public Restrooms across The University of Maine,” advised by Heather Falconer

Executive Certificate in Management and Leadership: Problem-Solving Bundle

Set contains:, questions are the answer: a breakthrough approach to creative problem solving, innovation, and change.

• Select Format and Dates for Availability

Unlocking the Power of Perspectives: Problem Solving with Clarity, Creativity, and Collaboration

Understanding and Solving Complex Business Problems

Visual Management for Competitive Advantage: MIT’s Approach to Efficient and Agile Work

Executive Certificate in Management and Leadership

• Colleges & Degrees
• Academic Calendar
• International Education
• Graduate Studies
• Accreditation
• Tuition and Fees
• Parking & Maps
• Careers with CSULB
• Alumni Home
• Alumni Volunteering
• Alumni Giving

Campus Life

• Centers & Organizations
• Commencement
• Student Life
• Office of the President
• Office of the Provost
• Administration & Finance
• Student Affairs
• University Relations & Development
• Information Technology
• Beach Shops
• Campus Directory
• Enrollment Services
• Financial Aid
• Schedule of Classes
• Student Records
• 49er Foundation
• Research Foundation

1250 BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90840 562.985.4111

David Teubner 2024 Distinguished Faculty Teaching Award Recipient

Associate Professor David Teubner is the 2024 recipient of the CSULB Distinguished Faculty Teaching Award. Dave has been an influential leader in the Design Department and a dedicated leader in the Industrial Design program. He is passionate about design and has worked in the field since 1980 in animation, film production, advertising, and industrial design. Dave instills design thinking and problem-solving in all his courses, the use of technology, and is now incorporating AI into his curriculum.  

The University Achievement Awards were held on Wednesday, April 24, 2024, at The Pointe on CSULB campus with Dr. Karyn Scissum Gunn, Provost & Senior Vice President; Simon Kim, AVP, Research and Development; and Pei-Fang Hung, Chair, Academic Senate presiding. Our sincere congratulations go to Associate Professor David Teubner on receiving the prestigious award. For the full story: https://www.csulb.edu/office-of-the-provost/university-achievement-awards  

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Women of color still lag behind in STEM jobs, despite efforts to change

Marisa Peñaloza

A mural at the first National STEM Festival held in Washington, D.C., this month shows the purpose of the gathering. High school students from around the country were celebrated for winning a science challenge. Dee Dwyer for NPR hide caption

On a recent Spring weekend 126 high school students from around the country gathered at the first National STEM Festival in Washington, D.C. They are winners of a science challenge organized by EXPLR , an organization that produces and distributes educational materials, including videos and curriculum, for high school students in the U.S.

The winners were here to showcase their projects in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) to government and industry leaders.

At the National STEM Festival, 12th-grader Treyonna Sullivan talks with visitors about her "Project Poop," created to encourage pet owners in her community to dispose of their pet's waste. Dee Dwyer for NPR hide caption

At the National STEM Festival, 12th-grader Treyonna Sullivan talks with visitors about her "Project Poop," created to encourage pet owners in her community to dispose of their pet's waste.

There were students like Treyonna Sullivan. She's 17 and a senior at Renaissance High School for Musical Theater in the Arts in the South Bronx, New York.

"My project is called Project Poop," she says, with a big smile. It's a smart trash can that counts the poop dumps put in it. It's a metal, ruby red bucket — when you press the handle the lid opens up and the computer counts the dump.

"We have a huge poop problem in my community," Sullivan says, and she believes that if people could see the daily number of dumps collected, perhaps people would start changing habits and clean up after their pets.

Treyonna Sullivan, 17, is a winner in a national science challenge. She created "Project Poop," a smart trash can that counts the poop dumps put in it. She's from the South Bronx in New York. Dee Dwyer for NPR hide caption

"It's like playing hopscotch to get everywhere, and it sucks because when you step on it, you carry it everywhere. It's just a mess," she says, adding that it's also bad for the environment. "It's not sanitary. And the more that we leave it out there, the more that it pollutes the air." It can also contaminate water when it rains and parasite and pathogen transmission can cause disease, she says.

Sullivan, dressed in a soft pink work suit, shows visitors her prototype of the can.

"It's coded in Python and it has a Raspberry Pi," she says.

Seventh-graders attended the National STEM Festival in D.C. They are, left to right, Makayla Warren, Morgan Locke, Maleah Johnson, Taryn Ward and Jordan Krull. They are part of an after-school STEM program in North Carolina. Dee Dwyer for NPR hide caption

Seventh-graders attended the National STEM Festival in D.C. They are, left to right, Makayla Warren, Morgan Locke, Maleah Johnson, Taryn Ward and Jordan Krull. They are part of an after-school STEM program in North Carolina.

Python is a computer programming language and a Raspberry Pi is a computer the size of a credit card, but with the features of a full computer, she says.

Her plan is to place the trash cans all over the South Bronx, she says. But first Sullivan needs to fundraise to be able to mass produce the smart can.

The South Bronx is known as the birthplace of hip-hop and graffiti. But Congressional district 15 is also the poorest in the country with a 27.7% poverty rate while the national rate is 11.5%, according to the U.S. Census.

Sullivan attends after-school classes at the Renaissance Youth Center , where she learned to code about three years ago, "and I fell in love with it even though it was frustrating at first and it was hard for me to understand everything."

Encouraged by the youth center's director, Sullivan entered the science challenge and she's still pinching herself to be a winner.

"It's incredible!" she says.

Attendees at the festival in Washington, D.C., checked out the science challenge's winning projects. Dee Dwyer for NPR hide caption

She looked up some of her competitors' backgrounds and she thought she didn't have a chance, she says.

"I feel like being able to have Black mentors and see more Black youth like me doing things that aren't really in our comfort zone — that really inspired me."

Sullivan has applied to college, and has already been accepted to several, she says, but she's waiting to hear about financial aid. She plans to study interior design with some aspects of STEM incorporated in design and construction, she says.

Science challenge-winner Nikita Prabhakar from Madison, Alabama, developed a non-invasive integrated sensor to monitor menorrhagia, a type of abnormal bleeding in a menstrual cycle. Dee Dwyer for NPR hide caption

It's hard to break stereotypes

Amid longstanding efforts to increase diversity in these fields, and as STEM jobs are expected to rise in the coming years, women of color remain underrepresented and underpaid in the STEM workforce, according to a Pew Research Center study .

Kuheli Dutt is Assistant Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology School of Science in Cambridge, MA.

"In STEM fields, research shows that women of color face the most challenges and harassment, both explicit and implicit," Dutt says.

She's the lead author in a 2016 study that looked at gender disparity in recommendation letters and found that regardless of the gender of the letter writer, male applicants were more likely to receive outstanding letters compared to female applicants.

Hannah Coley, an 11th-grader from Stockbridge, Georgia, shows off her project, "The Effect of Fabric in Soil." Dee Dwyer for NPR hide caption

"There is a perception that men are smarter and therefore better at science. Unconscious biases can play out like that," Dutt says. "It starts really early on, and these messages keep getting reinforced over time."

Dutt mentions a 2018 study of children who were asked who was smarter, girls or boys? She says that 5-year-old kids were more likely to respond that their own group was smarter, but at 6, already both girls and boys were more likely to say that boys are smarter.

According to the latest National Science Foundation report, Diversity and STEM: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities , the workforce in STEM careers is made up of 61% white, 21% Asian, 8% Black, 8% Latino.

Naya Ellis, a 9th-grader, is a native of New Orleans. She developed a stroke detector. Dee Dwyer for NPR hide caption

Now, says Dutt, it's even more important to address equity in STEM early on because of the current backlash against DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) efforts — policies and practices that many schools and companies have adopted to make these spaces more equal for all.

For example, she says, students who come from under-resourced schools don't have the access to opportunities and resources that students from well-resourced schools do, "regardless of their race/ethnicity, there is an equity issue here that needs to be addressed."

Kara Branch, a chemical engineer by training, is the founder and CEO of Black Girls Do Engineer, an organization that empowers and inspires Black girls to go into STEM fields. Dee Dwyer for NPR hide caption

Kara Branch, a chemical engineer by training, is the founder and CEO of Black Girls Do Engineer, an organization that empowers and inspires Black girls to go into STEM fields.

Struck by impostor syndrome: Do I belong here?

Kara Branch is trained as a chemical engineer in Houston. Branch worked in the oil and gas industry as well as in the space industry for several years. She quit because she couldn't shake imposter syndrome.

"I felt like I wasn't wanted. I didn't feel comfortable," says the 34-year-old mother of three daughters. "I went to work every day just feeling like, 'Do I belong here?'"

Branch was raised by a single mother in Port Arthur, Texas, a predominantly disadvantaged Black community that's home to some of the world's largest refineries .

She says that she loved working as a chemical engineer, but she found the industry wasn't very welcoming to her.

A mural at the National STEM Festival in D.C. earlier this month is meant to inspire young people to think how science, technology, engineering and math can create a better world. Dee Dwyer for NPR hide caption

"I feel like I could not be myself," Branch says. "I had to change everything about me to fit in the environment."

"I was used to being myself, being free, being who I was," says Branch, who attended Prairie View A&M University, an HBCU. "But being myself in a corporate environment wasn't really always accepted. And so it was always very hard."

Branch says she's still passionate about the possibilities STEM careers can offer to women of color, but she felt a jolt when one of her daughters expressed interest in these fields.

"When my oldest daughter told me she wanted to come into this space, I wanted to be able to create a space not just for her, but for girls who look like her."

In 2019, Branch left her industry job and created Black Girls Do Engineer . It's a membership-based nonprofit that promotes STEM education and careers for girls.

It's important for Black girls to see professional Black women in the STEM workforce as well as to seek out mentors and allies to succeed, says Branch.

"When you're working on projects, you need to have everybody's perspective, everybody's ideas," she says. "And that comes from diversity."

"How are we going to make technology good for all?" she asks.

Archi Marrapu, 17, excitedly tells visitors about her project. "I usually get ideas based on problems that my family faces," says Marrapu, a junior at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology , a magnet school in Alexandria, VA. Dee Dwyer for NPR hide caption

Finding inspiration in solving family problems

Back at the National STEM Festival in D.C., organized by the U.S. Department of Education and EXPLR, 17-year-old Archi Marrapu excitedly tells visitors about her project.

It's an artificial intelligence, or AI-based, system to help people track their daily medicine intake, especially people who take a large amount of pills a day, she says. The focus is on people with a condition like arthritis who may not be able to open a bottle or who have cognitive problems and may forget to take medications, she says.

"I usually get ideas based on problems that my family faces," says Marrapu, a junior at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology , a magnet school in Alexandria, VA.

Marrapu's parents emigrated from Hyderabad in South India in the early 2000's, she says. She got interested in robotics and technology in elementary school, where she joined science clubs and competitions.

But it was on a trip to India in 2022 to visit family that Marrapu got the pill tracker idea.

"I was inspired by my grandfather who suffered from a series of heart and brain strokes," she says. "He had so many pills that he couldn't manage it. My grandmother couldn't manage it. It was like a small pharmacy. And I just thought about how important it was for him to make sure he was taking each of those pills."

Archie Marrapu, from Northern Virginia, created a "pill tracker". It's a plastic bottle fitted with ultrasonic sensors and an AI engine that tracks when/if a patient has taken his/her medication, among other things. Dee Dwyer for NPR hide caption

Marrapu's father takes medication to keep his diabetes in check. The pill tracker is designed to include an information section that was inspired by him.

"He really didn't know what other pills he could take with that medication, or if he had any dietary restrictions," she says.

Marrapu says there was a lot of confusion during the first weeks after her dad was put on the medication. The family relied on Google and multiple doctor visits, she says.

"I created a system that would send the user notifications, like, 'you've just taken your pill, please don't consume antacid until 2 hours have passed.' It's a guidance system so that people avoid compromising their medications," she says.

Marrapu knows she wants to study biomedical engineering with a minor in entrepreneurship when she goes to college, and her dream is to work in healthcare, she says.

"To make it more equitable, affordable and accurate as a whole," she says. "Healthcare is something that everyone deserves equally regardless of ethnicity or socioeconomic status."

She exudes self-assuredness and says she is aware of the disadvantages women of color face in STEM, but she's confident her generation will push for change.

"Whether it's talking to industries about hiring more women, giving women more opportunities with more pay, I think that's something women can change. I think women need to believe that they are enough," Marrapu says, emphasizing the word enough . "They can do whatever men can do, and they deserve whatever men do too."

Susie Cummings contributed research to this story.

Environmental Education, Reading and Fun: Community Event Incorporates Them All

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is committed to creating a lasting base of environmental literacy, stewardship, and problem-solving skills for today's youth. One way the service works towards this goal is by participating in community events where environmental education can be promoted. Wolf Creek National Fish Hatchery is always excited for opportunities in the community to provide such encounters. 

Marsha Hart, Environmental Education and Outreach Specialist at Wolf Creek National Fish Hatchery, attended the local “Read Across Russell County” event held at the Russell County Public Library on March 14, 2024. Wolf Creek NFH, along with other community partners, created an atmosphere where children and youth could have fun while reading and learning about various topics. 

Wolf Creek NFH set up to focus on pollination including topics such as what are pollinators, what is the process of pollination, the importance of pollination, and what can be done to help pollinators. To incorporate reading and fun, participants would spin a large wheel that would land on a question or topic about pollination for them to read aloud, and then answer or discuss the topic. It was wonderful to hear children share what they already know about pollinators, and be eager to learn more! Parents also joined in on the fun, with some telling of flowers they plant that attract pollinators and others telling about enjoying watching butterflies as they move from flower to flower.

The event was a success, with over 450 in attendance. Events like this provide the opportunity for us to join in community partnerships, and engage children and youth in environmental literacy. 

Latest Stories

You are exiting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website

You are being directed to

We do not guarantee that the websites we link to comply with Section 508 (Accessibility Requirements) of the Rehabilitation Act. Links also do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Justices Seem Ready to Limit the 2020 Election Case Against Trump

Such a ruling in the case, on whether the former president is immune from prosecution, would probably send it back to a lower court and could delay any trial until after the November election.

• Share full article

Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer

Charlie Savage reported from Washington, and Alan Feuer from New York.

Here are four takeaways from the Supreme Court hearing on Trump’s claim to immunity.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday about Donald J. Trump’s claim that the federal charges accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election must be thrown out because he is immune from being prosecuted for any official act he took as president.

Here are some takeaways.

Several justices seemed to want to define some level of official act as immune.

Although Mr. Trump’s claim of near-absolute immunity was seen as a long shot intended primarily to slow the proceedings, several members of the Republican-appointed majority seemed to indicate that some immunity was needed. Some of them expressed worry about the long-term consequences of leaving future former presidents open to prosecution for their official actions.

Among others, Justice Brett Kavanaugh compared the threat of prosecution for official acts to how a series of presidents were “hampered” by independent counsel investigations, criticizing a 1984 ruling that upheld a now-defunct law creating such prosecutors as one of the Supreme Court’s biggest mistakes. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. criticized an appeals court ruling rejecting immunity for Mr. Trump, saying he was concerned that it “did not get into a focused consideration of what acts we are talking about or what documents are talking about.”

“It’s a serious constitutional question whether a statute can be applied to the president’s official acts. So wouldn’t you always interpret the statute not to apply to the president, even under your formulation, unless Congress had spoken with some clarity?” “I don’t think across the board that as serious constitutional question exists on applying any criminal statute to the president.” “The problem is the vague statute — obstruction and 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States can be used against a lot of presidential activities historically with a creative prosecutor who wants to go after a president.” “I think that the question about the risk is very serious. And obviously it is a question that this court has to evaluate. For the executive branch, our view is that there is a balanced protection that better serves the interests of the Constitution that incorporates both accountability and protection for the president.”

The Democrat-appointed justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — asked questions indicating greater concern about opening the door for presidents to commit official crimes with impunity.

“This is what you’re asking us to say, which is that a president is entitled not to make a mistake — but more than that, a president is entitled for total personal gain to use the trappings of his office. That’s what you’re trying to get us to hold — without facing criminal liability.” “Your honor, I would say three things in response to that. First, the doctrine that immunity does not turn on the allegedly improper motivation or purpose is something that this court has reaffirmed in at least nine or 10 —” “That’s absolute immunity. But qualified immunity does say that whatever act you take has to be within what a reasonable person would do. I’m having a hard time thinking that creating false documents, that submitting false documents, that ordering the assassination of a rival, that accepting a bribe, and countless other laws that could be broken for personal gain, that anyone would say that it would be reasonable for a president or any public official to do that.”

The arguments signaled further delay and complications for a Trump trial.

If the Supreme Court does place limits on the ability of prosecutors to charge Mr. Trump over his official actions, it could alter the shape of his trial.

A decision to send all or part of the case back to the lower courts could further slow progress toward a trial, increasing the odds that it does not start before Election Day.

Of the matters listed in the indictment, some — like working with private lawyers to gin up slates of fraudulent electors — seem like the private actions of a candidate. Others — like pressuring the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to do things — seem more like official acts he took in his role as president.

At one point, Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that prosecutors could simply drop Mr. Trump’s arguably official actions from their case and proceed to a swift trial focused only on his private actions. And D. John Sauer, the lawyer for Mr. Trump, told the court that no evidence of Mr. Trump’s official actions should be allowed into the trial.

But Michael R. Dreeben, a Justice Department lawyer arguing on behalf of the special counsel’s office, said the indictment laid out an “integrated conspiracy” in which Mr. Trump took the official actions to bolster the chances that his other efforts to overturn the election would succeed.

He argued that even if the court holds that Mr. Trump has immunity from liability for his official actions, prosecutors should still be allowed to present evidence about them to the jury because the actions are relevant to assessing his larger knowledge and intentions — just as speech that is protected by the First Amendment can still be used as evidence in a conspiracy case.

The hearing revolved around two very different ways of looking at the issue.

Looming over the hearing was a sweeping moral question: What effect might executive immunity have on the future of American politics?

Not surprisingly, the two sides saw things very differently.

Mr. Sauer claimed that without immunity, all presidents would be paralyzed by the knowledge that once they were out of office, they could face an onslaught of charges from their rivals based on the tough calls they had to make while in power. He pictured a dystopian world of ceaseless tit-for-tat political prosecutions that would destroy the “presidency as we know it.”

If a president can be charged, put on trial and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president’s decision-making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed. Every current president will face de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office. The implications of the court’s decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case. Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq? Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike? Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies? The answer to all these questions is no.

Envisioning the opposite scenario, Mr. Dreeben worried that any form of blanket immunity would place presidents entirely outside of the rule of law and encourage them to commit crimes, including “bribery, treason, sedition, even murder,” with impunity.

“The framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong,” he said.

This court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. Petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts unless he was first impeached and convicted. His novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability; for bribery, treason, sedition, murder and here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the Constitution. The framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong.

Both sides found advocates for their positions on the court.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. clearly seemed worried that without some form of criminal immunity, former presidents would be vulnerable to partisan warfare as their successors used the courts to go after them once they were out of office. And that, he added, could lead to endless cycles of retribution that would be a risk to “stable, democratic society.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared more concerned that if presidents were in fact shielded by immunity, they would be unbounded by the law and could turn the Oval Office into what she described as “the seat of criminality.”

If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country? If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate, because O.L.C. has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning. But once we say no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want, I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.

What happens next?

There did not seem to be a lot of urgency among the justices — especially the conservative ones — to ensure that the immunity question was resolved quickly. That left open the possibility that Mr. Trump could avoid being tried on charges of plotting to overturn the last election until well after voters went to the polls to decide whether to choose him as president in this election.

And if he is elected, any trial could be put off while he is in office, or he could order the charges against him dropped.

It could take some time for the court to do its own analysis of what presidential acts should qualify for the protections of immunity. And even if the justices determine that at least some of the allegations against Mr. Trump are fair game for prosecution, if they do not issue a ruling until late June or early July, it could be difficult to hold a trial before November.

That would become all but impossible if the court took a different route and sent the analysis back to the trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan. If Judge Chutkan were ordered to hold further hearings on which of the indictment’s numerous allegations were official acts of Mr. Trump’s presidency and which were private acts he took as a candidate for office, the process could take months and last well into 2025.

Aishvarya Kavi

Reporting from Washington

A spectacle outside the Supreme Court for Trump’s defenders and detractors.

Just as the Supreme Court began considering on Thursday morning whether former President Donald J. Trump was entitled to absolute immunity, rap music started blaring outside the court.

The lyrics, laced with expletives, denounced Mr. Trump, and several dozen demonstrators began chanting, “Trump is not above the law!”

Mr. Trump was not in Washington on Thursday morning — in fact, he was in another courtroom , in New York. But the spectacle that pierced the relative tranquillity outside the court was typical of events that involve him: demonstrations, homemade signs, police, news media, and lots and lots of curious onlookers.

One man, Stephen Parlato, a retired mental health counselor from Boulder, Colo., held a roughly 6-foot-long sign with a blown-up photo of Mr. Trump scowling that read, “Toxic loser.” The back of the sign featured the famous painting by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge of dogs playing poker, adorned with the words, “Faith erodes … in a court with no binding ethics code.” He made the sign at FedEx, he said.

The Supreme Court’s decision to even hear the case, which has delayed Mr. Trump’s election interference trial , was “absurd,” he said.

“I’m a child of the late ’60s and early ’70s and the Vietnam War,” said Mr. Parlato, dressed in a leather jacket and cowboy hat. “I remember protesting that while in high school. But this is very different. I’m here because I’m terrified of the possibility of a second Trump presidency.”

Inside the court, Jack Smith sat to the far right of the lawyer arguing on behalf of his team of prosecutors, Michael R. Dreeben, a leading expert in criminal law who has worked for another special counsel who investigated Mr. Trump, Robert S. Mueller III.

Among those in attendance were Jane Sullivan Roberts, who is married to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Ashley Estes Kavanaugh, who is married to Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

In an orderly line outside along the side of the court, people were calmly waiting to listen to the arguments from the court’s public gallery. More than 100 people, many of them supporters of Mr. Trump, were in line as of 8:30 a.m. Reagan Pendarvis, 19, who had been waiting there since the middle of the night, said the first person in line had gotten there more than a day before the arguments began.

Mr. Pendarvis, a sophomore at the University of California, San Diego who is living in Washington for the spring semester, was wearing a black suit and bright red bow tie. He said he had been struggling to keep warm since he took his place in line.

Mr. Pendarvis, a supporter of Mr. Trump, said he thought that the cases brought against the former president were an uneven application of the law.

“I think a lot of the cases, especially that happen for Donald Trump, don’t really happen for Democrats on the other side,” he said. “That’s just my take on it.”

David Bolls, 42, and his brother, Jonathan, 43, both of Springfield, Va., also in line for the arguments, also contended that the prosecutions against Mr. Trump were an abuse of judicial power.

“For me, I want to see an even application of justice,” David Bolls said.

For others in line, the Supreme Court’s deliberations were not the main draw. Ellen Murphy, a longtime Washington resident, was trying to sell buttons she designs, though she acknowledged that it was unlikely she would be allowed in with all of her merchandise.

Dozens of the buttons, which said, “Immunize democracy now” and “Trump is toast” over a toaster with two slices of bread, were pinned to a green apron she was wearing.

“We lose our democracy,” Ms. Murphy said, “if the president can do whatever he wants just because he’s president.”

Eileen Sullivan contributed reporting.

Advertisement

Adam Liptak

What’s next: Much will turn on how quickly the court acts.

The justices heard arguments in the immunity case at a special session, the day after what had been the last scheduled argument of its term. Arguments heard in late April almost always yield decisions near the end of the court’s term, in late June or early July.

But a ruling in early summer, even if it categorically rejected Mr. Trump’s position, would make it hard to complete his trial before the election. Should Mr. Trump win at the polls, there is every reason to think he would scuttle the prosecution.

In cases that directly affected elections — in which the mechanisms of voting were at issue — the court has sometimes acted with unusual speed.

In 2000, in Bush v. Gore, the court issued its decision handing the presidency to George W. Bush the day after the justices heard arguments.

In a recent case concerning Mr. Trump’s eligibility to appear on Colorado’s primary ballot, the justices moved more slowly, but still at a relatively brisk pace. The court granted Mr. Trump’s petition seeking review just two days after he filed it , scheduled arguments for about a month later and issued its decision in his favor about a month after that.

In United States v. Nixon, the 1974 decision that ordered President Richard M. Nixon to comply with a subpoena for audiotapes of conversations with aides in the White House, the court also moved quickly , granting the special prosecutor’s request to bypass the appeals court a week after it was filed.

The court heard arguments about five weeks later — compared with some eight weeks in Mr. Trump’s immunity case. It issued its decision 16 days after the argument , and the trial was not delayed.

Abbie VanSickle

The oral argument lasted nearly three hours, as the justices tangled with a lawyer for the former president and a Justice Department lawyer. A majority of the justices appeared skeptical of the idea of sweeping presidential immunity. However, several of them suggested an interest in drawing out what actions may be immune and what may not — a move that could delay the former president’s trial if the Supreme Court asks a lower court to revisit the issues.

Many of the justices seemed to be considering the idea that presidents should enjoy some form of protection against criminal prosecution. The devil, however, will be in the details: How should that protection extend?

And that question will have profound relevance not only for future presidents, but much more immediately for Donald Trump. The court could decide to draw those rules itself in a broad way for history. Or it could send this case back to a lower court to set the rules of what form immunity could take. If the case is sent back for further proceedings, it could have a dramatic effect on the timing of Trump’s trial, pushing it well past the election in November.

Looking back, one of the main points of discussion turned on the question of which situation would be worse: a world in which presidents, shorn of any legal protections against prosecution, were ceaselessly pursued in the courts by their rivals in a never-ending cycle of political retribution, or allowing presidents to be unbounded by criminal law and permitted to do whatever they wanted with impunity.

Charlie Savage

Sauer, Trump’s attorney, declines to offer a rebuttal. The argument is over.

If the court finds that there is some immunity for official actions, one of the most important questions will be whether prosecutors can still present evidence to the jury of Trump’s official actions (like pressuring the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to do certain things) as evidence that helps illuminate Trump’s knowledge and intent for his private acts as a candidate. Dreeben says the jury needs to understand the whole “integrated conspiracy” but prosecutors would accept a jury instruction in which the judge would say they cannot impose liability for the official actions but may consider them as evidence of his knowledge and intent for the other actions. That’s how courts handle protected speech that is evidence to a larger conspiracy, he notes.

Justice Barrett picks up the question of timing again. She suggests that if prosecutors want to take Trump quickly to trial, they could simply drop those parts of the indictment that seem to be his official acts as president and proceed with only those parts of the indictment that reflect Trump’s private actions taken as a candidate for office. Dreeben is not wild about that idea.

Dreeben suggests that allegations in the “private acts bucket,” as Justice Jackson just called it, would include things like the scheme to create fake electors and the way in which Trump fomented a mob of his supporters to violently attack the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Justice Barrett seems to signal that she is less likely to find that presidents have blanket immunity for their official acts. When Dreeben says the system needs to balance the effective functioning of the presidency and accountability for a former president under the rule of law, and the existing system does that pretty well or maybe needs a few ancillary rules but that is different from the “radical proposal” put forward by Trump’s legal team, she says: “I agree.”

Dreeben, in a balancing act that seems to acknowledge that the court is looking for some form of criminal immunity for presidents, says he is trying to do two things at once, neither of them easy. He wants to design a system to find some rules that preserve the “effective functioning of the presidency” but that still allows for “accountability” if presidents violated the law.

Kavanaugh asks Dreeben about Obama’s drone strike that killed an American citizen suspected of terrorism, Anwar al-Awlaki, which Trump’s lawyer invoked in his opening. Dreeben notes that the Office of Legal Counsel analyzed the question and found that the murder statute did not apply to presidents when they were acting under public authority, so authorizing the strike was lawful. This is the way the system can function, he said — the Justice Department analyzes laws carefully and with established principles.

Justice Kavanaugh signals that he is likely to find that presidents must have immunity for their official actions. He talks about how the threat of prosecution by independent counsels (under a law that lapsed in 1999) hampered Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton, and says a 1984 ruling upholding that structure as constitutional was one of the Supreme Court’s biggest mistakes. (Notably, Kavanaugh was a prosecutor on the staff of independent counsel Ken Starr during his investigation into President Bill Clinton, before becoming a White House lawyer under President George W. Bush.)

Dreeben tries to push back on Kavanaugh’s argument by saying that even after Watergate, even after all of the independent counsel investigations mentioned above, the legal system has survived without “having gone off on a runaway train” of actual criminal prosecutions against former presidents.

The Supreme Court rejected Bill Clinton’s claim of immunity.

In Clinton v. Jones in 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed a sexual harassment suit against President Bill Clinton to proceed while he was in office, discounting concerns that it would distract him from his official responsibilities. Both of his appointees, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, voted against him.

“The president is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court, adding, “We have never suggested that the president, or any other official, has an immunity that extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity.”

The case was in one sense harder than the one against Mr. Trump, as it involved a sitting president. In another sense, though, it was easier, as it concerned an episode said to have taken place before Mr. Clinton took office (Paula Jones, an Arkansas state employee, said Mr. Clinton had made lewd advances in a hotel room when he was governor of the state).

The case is best remembered for a prediction in Justice Stevens’s majority opinion that “it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner’s time.” In fact, it led to Mr. Clinton’s impeachment.

In the same paragraph, Justice Stevens made a second prediction.

“In the more than 200-year history of the Republic, only three sitting presidents have been subjected to suits for their private actions,” he wrote. “If the past is any indicator, it seems unlikely that a deluge of such litigation will ever engulf the presidency.”

Suits against Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman were dismissed, and one against President John F. Kennedy involving a car accident during his 1960 campaign was settled. The case against Mr. Clinton added a fourth.

Justice Stevens, who died in 2019, failed to anticipate the enormous volume of civil and criminal litigation in which Mr. Trump and his businesses have been named as defendants.

We are now over the two-hour mark of the Supreme Court’s arguments in the Trump immunity case. The Justice Department lawyer has continued to face skeptical questions from many of the court’s conservatives, several of whom appear particularly focused on how to draw the line between a president’s core powers and non-core powers. In other words, what actions by a president might be shielded from prosecution and what would not. The questioning suggests that some of the justices may favor a ruling that could lead to more lower-court proceedings, perhaps delaying the trial.

The Supreme Court’s relatively new process (coming out of Covid) of letting each justice ask questions at the end in order of seniority has an interesting consequence, as seen here. Dreeben kept wanting to say these things about government legal memos and to go into the details about the actions Trump is accused of taking, but the Republican-appointed justices kept cutting him off. It’s the turn of Kagan, a Democratic appointee, to ask any final questions she wants, and she is letting him talk on and on.

Much of the discussion this morning has swirled around the question of whether, without immunity, presidents will be hounded by their rivals with malicious charges after leaving office. Alito and other conservatives on the court seem concerned that the Trump prosecutions will open the door to endless attacks against future presidents.

The other main topic of discussion has been whether presidents enjoy some form of immunity for carrying out their official duties and, if so, how those official actions are defined. That’s an important question for the Trump election case because Trump has claimed he was acting in his role as president when, by his own account, he sought to root out fraud in the 2020 vote count. It’s also important for a different reason: the justices could send the official acts question back to a lower court to sort out, and that process could take a long time, delaying the case's trial until after this year’s election.

Justice Alito suggests that there is a risk to our stable democracy if presidents who lose close elections would not be allowed to retire in peace but could face prosecution. He has essentially flipped the situation under consideration upside down: that Trump is being prosecuted for having used fraud to remain in power after losing a close election.

A part of this exchange between Justice Alito and the Justice Department's lawyer, Dreeben, gets at a pressure point in American-style democracy and the rule of law. One of the safeguards against illegitimate prosecutions of ex-presidents, Dreeben says, is that if the Justice Department has advised the president that doing something would be lawful, the department could not later turn around and prosecute the now-former president for relying on that advice and doing that thing.

Alito points out that this creates an incentive for presidents to appoint attorneys general who will just tell them that anything they want to do would be legal. Indeed — that is a critique of the Office of Legal Counsel system, in which politically appointed lawyers decide what the law means for the executive branch.

An example: During the George W. Bush administration, memos about post-9/11 surveillance and torture were written by a politically appointed lawyer with idiosyncratically broad views of a president’s supposed power, as commander in chief, to authorize violations of surveillance and torture laws. The Justice Department later withdrew those memos as espousing a false view of the law, but held that officials who had taken action based on those memos could not be charged with crimes.

Justice Alito suggests there are not enough legal safeguards in place to protect presidents against malicious prosecution if they don’t have some form of immunity. He tells Dreeben that the grand jury process isn’t much of a protection because prosecutors, as the saying goes, can indict a ham sandwich. When Dreeben tries to argue that prosecutors sometimes don’t indict people who don’t deserve it, Alito dismissively says, “Every once in a while there’s an eclipse too.”

If you are just joining in, the justices are questioning the Justice Department lawyer, Michael Dreeben, about the government’s argument that former President Trump is not absolutely immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election. Dreeben has faced skeptical questions from several of the conservative justices, including both Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, who have suggested that the fraud conspiracy statute being used against the former president is vague. That statute is central to the government’s case against Trump.

Justice Alito now joins Justice Kavanaugh in suggesting that the fraud conspiracy statute is very vague and broadly drawn. That is bad news for the indictment brought against Trump by Jack Smith, the special counsel.

The scope and viability of this fraud statute, which is absolutely central to the Trump indictment, wasn’t on the menu of issues seemingly at play in this hearing. Kavanaugh and Alito appear to have gone out of their way to question its use in the Trump case.

Justice Sotomayor points out that under the Trump team’s theory that a criminal statute has to clearly state that it applies to the presidency for it to cover a president’s official actions, there would essentially be no accountability at all. Because only a tiny handful of laws mention the president, that means a president could act contrary to them without violating them. As a result, the Senate could not even impeach a president for violating criminal statutes, she says — because he would not be violating those laws if they don’t apply to the president.

Dreeben is under heavy fire from the court’s conservatives.

The precedent most helpful to Trump: Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

In 1982, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald , the Supreme Court ruled that former President Richard M. Nixon had absolute immunity from civil lawsuits — ones brought by private litigants seeking money — for conduct “within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.”

The ruling is helpful to former President Donald J. Trump, establishing as it does that immunity can be expansive, lives on after a president leaves office and extends to the very limits of what may be said to be official conduct.

But the decision also falls well short of dictating the outcome in the case that is being argued on Thursday, which concerns a criminal prosecution, not a civil suit.

The 1982 case arose from a lawsuit brought by an Air Force analyst, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, who said he was fired in 1970 in retaliation for his criticism of cost overruns. By the time the Supreme Court acted, Nixon had been out of office for several years.

“In view of the special nature of the president’s constitutional office and functions,” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote for the majority 5-to-4 decision, “we think it appropriate to recognize absolute presidential immunity from damages liability” for Nixon’s official conduct, broadly defined.

But the decision drew a sharp line between civil suits, which it said can be abusive and harassing, and criminal prosecutions like the one Mr. Trump is facing.

“In view of the visibility of his office and the effect of his actions on countless people, the president would be an easily identifiable target for suits for civil damages,” Justice Powell wrote, adding, “The court has recognized before that there is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than, for example, in criminal prosecutions.”

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger underscored the point in a concurring opinion. “The immunity is limited to civil damages claims,” he wrote.

Even in the context of civil suits, Nixon v. Fitzgerald conferred immunity only on conduct within the “outer perimeter” of a president’s official duties. Jack Smith, the special counsel, has said that Mr. Trump’s efforts to subvert democracy are well outside that line.

The Justice Department has already granted sitting presidents immunity while they are in office.

Former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that former presidents must enjoy “complete immunity” from prosecution for any crimes they committed in office would significantly expand the temporary immunity that sitting presidents already have.

Nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes says that presidents are shielded from being prosecuted while in office, and no court has ever ruled that way. But political appointees in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, whose interpretations are binding on the executive branch, have declared that the Constitution implicitly establishes such immunity.

This argument boils down to practicalities of governance: The stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to carry out his duties, Robert G. Dixon Jr. , then the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in a memo in September 1973 . This would prevent the executive branch “from accomplishing its constitutional functions” in a way that cannot “be justified by an overriding need,” he added.

Mr. Dixon, an appointee of President Richard M. Nixon, wrote his memo against the backdrop of the Watergate scandal, when Mr. Nixon faced a criminal investigation by a special counsel, Archibald Cox. The next month, Nixon’s solicitor general, Robert H. Bork , in a court brief , similarly argued for an “inference” that the Constitution makes sitting presidents immune from indictment and trial.

(That same month, Mr. Nixon had Mr. Cox fired in the so-called Saturday Night Massacre. Mr. Nixon’s attorney general and deputy attorney general resigned rather than carry out his orders to oust the prosecutor; Mr. Nixon then turned to Mr. Bork, the department’s No. 3, who proved willing to do it. Amid a political backlash, Mr. Nixon was forced to allow a new special counsel, Leon Jaworski , to resume the investigation.)

The question arose again a generation later, when President Bill Clinton faced an investigation by Kenneth Starr, an independent counsel, into the Whitewater land deal that morphed into an inquiry into his affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. Randolph D. Moss , Mr. Clinton’s appointee to lead the Office of Legal Counsel, reviewed the Justice Department’s 1973 opinions and reaffirmed their conclusions .

Legal scholars, as well as staff for prosecutors investigating presidents, have disputed the legitimacy of that constitutional theory. In 1974, Mr. Jaworski received a memo from his staff saying he could, in fact, indict Mr. Nixon while he was in office, and he later made that case in a court brief .

And in a 56-page memo in 1998, Ronald Rotunda, a prominent conservative constitutional scholar whom Mr. Starr hired as a consultant on his legal team, rejected the view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office. Mr. Starr later said that he had concluded that he could indict Mr. Clinton.

“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” Mr. Rotunda wrote. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”

Mr. Starr commissioned the Rotunda memo as he was drafting a potential indictment of Mr. Clinton, and Mr. Starr decided that he could charge the president while in office. In the end, however, both Mr. Jaworski and Mr. Starr decided to let congressional impeachment proceedings play out and did not try to bring indictments while Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton remained in office.

The question may never be definitively tested in the courts. In 1999, Congress allowed a law that created independent counsels like Mr. Starr — prosecutors who do not report to the attorney general — to expire, and the Justice Department issued regulations to allow for the appointment of semiautonomous special counsels for inquiries into potential high-level wrongdoing in the executive branch.

Special counsels are, however, bound by Justice Departments policies and practices — including the Office of Legal Counsel’s proclamation that sitting presidents are temporarily immune from criminal indictment or trial.

Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage

Is there such a thing as executive immunity?

There are no direct precedents on the broad question of whether presidents have criminal immunity for their official actions.

The Supreme Court has held that presidents are absolutely immune from civil lawsuits related to their official acts , in part to protect them against ceaseless harassment and judicial scrutiny of their day-to-day decisions. The court has also held that presidents can be sued over their personal actions .

The Supreme Court has further found that while presidents are sometimes immune from judicial subpoenas requesting internal executive branch information, that privilege is not absolute. Even presidents, the court has decided, can be forced to obey a subpoena in a criminal case if the need for information is great enough.

But until Mr. Trump wound up in court, the Supreme Court has never had a reason to decide whether former presidents are protected from being prosecuted for official actions. The Justice Department has long maintained that sitting presidents are temporarily immune from prosecution because criminal charges would distract them from their constitutional functions. But since Mr. Trump is not in office, that is not an issue.

The closest the country has come to the prosecution of a former president over official actions came in 1974, when Richard M. Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached over the Watergate scandal. But a pardon by his successor, President Gerald R. Ford, protected Nixon from indictment by the Watergate special prosecutor.

Mr. Smith’s team has argued that Ford’s pardon — and Nixon’s acceptance of it — demonstrates that both men understood that Nixon was not already immune. Mr. Trump’s team has sought to counter that point by arguing — inaccurately — that Nixon faced potential criminal charges only over private actions, like tax fraud. But the special prosecutor weighed charging Nixon with abusing his office to obstruct justice.

Mr. Trump’s team has argued that denying his claims risks unleashing a routine practice of prosecuting former presidents for partisan reasons. But Mr. Smith’s team has argued that if courts endorse Mr. Trump’s theory, then future presidents who are confident of surviving impeachment could, with impunity, commit any number of crimes in connection with their official actions.

“Such a result would severely undermine the compelling public interest in the rule of law and criminal accountability,” prosecutors wrote.

Hypothetical questions test the limits of Trump’s immunity claim.

An exchange during an appeals court argument in January about a hypothetical political assassination tested former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he is absolutely immune from prosecution for his official conduct.

His lawyer, D. John Sauer, has urged the justices to consider only what he is actually accused of: plotting to subvert the 2020 election. But hypothetical questions are routine at the Supreme Court, and they have a way of illuminating the contours and implications of legal theories.

That is what happened in January, when Judge Florence Y. Pan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had to press Mr. Sauer to get an answer to a hypothetical question: Are former presidents absolutely immune from prosecution, even for murders they ordered while in office?

“I asked you a yes-or-no question,” Judge Pan said. “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”

Mr. Sauer said his answer was a “qualified yes,” by which he meant no. He explained that prosecution would be permitted only if the president were first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

Impeachments of presidents are rare: There have been four in the history of the Republic, two of them of Mr. Trump. The number of convictions, which require a two-thirds majority of the Senate: zero.

Mr. Sauer’s statement called to mind a 2019 federal appeals court argument over whether Mr. Trump could block state prosecutors from obtaining his tax and business records. He maintained that he was immune not only from prosecution but also from criminal investigation so long as he was president.

At that time, Judge Denny Chin of the Second Circuit pressed William S. Consovoy, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, asking about his client’s famous statement that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing political support.

“Local authorities couldn’t investigate?” Judge Chin asked, adding: “Nothing could be done? That’s your position?”

“That is correct,” said Mr. Consovoy. “That is correct.”

This headline followed: “If Trump Shoots Someone on 5th Ave., Does He Have Immunity? His Lawyer Says Yes.”

For his part, Mr. Sauer does not seem eager to revisit the question about assassinations. Indeed, in asking the Supreme Court to hear Mr. Trump’s appeal, Mr. Sauer urged the justices not to be distracted by “lurid hypotheticals” that “almost certainly never will occur.”

What counts as an official act as president?

Another issue that has come up in lower courts in this case was what counted as an official act for a president, as opposed to a private action that was not connected to his constitutional responsibilities.

If the justices want to dispose of the dispute without definitively ruling on whether presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts, they could do so by finding that the specific steps former President Donald J. Trump took to remain in office that are cited in the federal indictment were not official actions. If so, the broader immunity question would not matter, and the prosecution could proceed.

The acts by Mr. Trump cited in the indictment include using deceit to organize fake slates of electors and to try to get state officials to subvert legitimate election results; trying to get the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to help fraudulently alter the results; directing his supporters to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; and exploiting the violence and chaos of their ensuing riot.

In its court filings, Mr. Trump’s team has sought to reframe those accusations not only as official actions, but innocuous or even admirable ones.

“All five types of conduct alleged in the indictment constitute official acts,” they wrote. “They all reflect President Trump’s efforts and duties, squarely as chief executive of the United States, to advocate for and defend the integrity of the federal election, in accord with his view that it was tainted by fraud and irregularity.”

Mr. Smith’s team has argued that they should be seen as the efforts of a person seeking office, not of an officeholder carrying out government responsibilities.

“Those alleged acts were carried out by and on behalf of the defendant in his capacity as a candidate, and the extensive involvement of private attorneys and campaign staff in procuring the fraudulent slates as alleged in the indictment underscores that those activities were not within the outer perimeter of the office of the presidency,” they wrote.

Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is overseeing Mr. Trump’s case in Federal District Court in Washington, issued her ruling rejecting Mr. Trump’s immunity claim without including any detailed analysis of whether his acts were “official.”

If the Supreme Court were to send the matter back to her to take a stab at answering that question before restarting the appeals process, Mr. Trump will, at a minimum, have used up additional valuable time that could help push any trial past the election.

Noah Weiland and Alan Feuer

Here are the lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court.

The two lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court on Thursday have each played a role in some of the defining legal battles stemming from Mr. Trump’s term in office.

Arguing the case for the special counsel Jack Smith will be Michael Dreeben, who worked for a different special counsel’s office that scrutinized Mr. Trump’s presidency: Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into links between Russia and associates of Mr. Trump. Mr. Dreeben, one of the nation’s leading criminal law experts, has made more than 100 oral arguments before the Supreme Court, including when he served as deputy solicitor general.

On Mr. Mueller’s team, he handled pretrial litigation, defending the scope of the investigation and preventing the office from losing cases on appeal. He also helped with a second part of Mr. Mueller’s investigation, examining whether Mr. Trump had tried to obstruct the inquiry in his dealings with associates involved in the case.

Mr. Dreeben, who was heavily involved in the writing of Mr. Mueller’s final report on his investigation, supported an interpretation of presidential power that emphasized limits on what a president could do while exercising his or her powers, according to “Where Law Ends,” a book written by Andrew Weissmann, another prosecutor on Mr. Mueller’s team.

After Mr. Mueller’s investigation concluded, Mr. Dreeben took a teaching position at Georgetown University’s law school and returned to private practice at O’Melveny, arguing in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of the city of Austin over a First Amendment dispute about the placement of digital billboards.

Opposing Mr. Dreeben in front of the Supreme Court will be D. John Sauer, a lawyer based in St. Louis who once served as the solicitor general of Missouri. Mr. Sauer joined Mr. Trump’s legal team late last year to handle appellate matters, including his challenge to a gag order imposed on him in the election case in Washington.

As Missouri’s solicitor general, Mr. Sauer took part in a last-ditch effort to keep Mr. Trump in power after his defeat in the 2020 election, filing a motion on behalf of his state and five others in support of an attempt by Texas to have the Supreme Court toss out the results of the vote count in several key swing states.

He also joined in an unsuccessful bid with Texas in asking the Supreme Court to stop the Biden administration from rescinding a Trump-era immigration program that forces certain asylum seekers arriving at the southwestern border to await approval in Mexico.

When he left the solicitor general’s office last January, Mr. Sauer, who once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, returned to his private firm, the James Otis Law Group. The firm is named after a prominent Revolutionary War-era lawyer who built a career out of challenging abuses by British colonial forces.

To justify his defense in the immunity case, Trump turns to a familiar tactic.

When the Supreme Court considers Donald J. Trump’s sweeping claims of executive immunity on Thursday, it will break new legal ground, mulling for the first time the question of whether a former president can avoid being prosecuted for things he did in office.

But in coming up with the argument, Mr. Trump used a tactic on which he has often leaned in his life as a businessman and politician: He flipped the facts on their head in an effort to create a different reality.

At the core of his immunity defense is a claim that seeks to upend the story told by federal prosecutors in an indictment charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 election. In that indictment, prosecutors described a criminal conspiracy by Mr. Trump to subvert the election results and stay in power.

In Mr. Trump’s telling, however, those same events are official acts that he undertook as president to safeguard the integrity of the race and cannot be subject to prosecution.

In many ways, Mr. Trump’s immunity claim is breathtaking. In one instance, his lawyers went so far as to say that a president could not be prosecuted even for using the military to assassinate a rival unless he was first impeached.

But the wholesale rewriting of the government’s accusations — which first appeared six months ago in Mr. Trump’s motion to dismiss the election interference case — may be the most audacious part of his defense. It was certainly a requisite step his lawyers had to take to advance the immunity argument.

Other courts have ruled that presidents enjoy limited immunity from civil lawsuits for things they did as part of the formal responsibilities of their job. To extend that legal concept to criminal charges, Mr. Trump’s lawyers needed to reframe all of the allegations lodged against him in the election interference case as official acts of his presidency rather than as the actions of a candidate misusing his power.