You’ve hit on something here that is important. When one is able to choose the teammates vs. when one is placed into a team without the power of selection. I find it generally easier to work with teams where I get to choose the teammates. But then, I also tend to be a leader as opposed to a follower. I usually have a vision, and if I am able to select people that fit into that vision, I can usually execute more effectively.

This may not be an issue for people who tend to be followers. But it can be for leader types. This is where egos can become a problem.

I used to want to always be the one selecting and leading. What I’ve found, though, is how to be a leader in a group where someone else is the leader, or there are strong egos that want things a certain way. To be honest, these can sometimes be more fun to lead from the background. Think Ben Linus from Lost, only not evil or subversive. He was adept at getting what he wanted out of people, executing a plan, while at the same time getting them to believe it was their idea.

It’s interesting leading people from this direction. In fact, in a lot of ways, it is more effective. You can often get more buy-in from people, because they feel as if they are getting what they want. And they are. The difference is, you are steering them in that direction, and finding a way to connect it to the greater purpose.

On another note, something I often see is people who are not effective at leadership promoted into leadership positions. They might have a lot of technical experience to draw from. They might have earned it through years of hard work. They might even have the ability to make the big decisions and get people to follow. And yet, that doesn’t mean they are effective at leadership.

The one thing I often find lacking in these particular people is that they don’t tend to craft a vision and communicate that vision consistently with the people they lead. Part of that is that they are also often not good listeners and don’t trust the judgment of those “below” them. They make decisions and give direction without always tying it back into the bigger picture. They take for granted that that person they are directing fully “gets it.”

I don’t hear the “why” coming from these leaders as much as I think should. And, when someone asks why, the answer can be unsatisfying. Leaders need to always think, “What do I need to communicate so that everyone gets what he or she is doing, and how it fits into the bigger picture?”

The more time I spend in the nonprofit world, the more I get why for profits spend so much time and energy on “gurus” like Stephen Covey and their “win-win” situations. It can be obnoxious during the delivery, and taken too far. But there is something fundamental that all of these gurus are trying to communicate in making the chiefs and the Indians more effective, and I do see a lot of that lacking in a lot of nonprofits.

Okay. This is turning into another blog post. I haven’t even gotten into what I learned about leadership dos and don’ts by living in a post-Soviet country.

That being said, I’m lucky enough to be able to CREATE the groups I work with, and I have a cardinal rule, based on the “It” factor. The basic rule is that if one can’t subvert their ego to the good of the aim, they’re out. Takes a little longer to build a team, but the results are rewarding and productive. Room is always left for an ego or two, provided they add some otherwise completely unattainable value. I often liken my approach to that of a typical film or theater crew. That’s another work environment worth examining if you’re interested in creatively exploring organizational methods.

Dangit, my comment is almost as long as your piece! Great stuff, Ben. Thanks!

2. Find training opportunities and resources. I suggest monitoring IJNet.org. The easiest way to do that is to subscribe to their fantastic weekly newsletter (click on “Subscribe” in the upper right corner of the home page). Trust me on this.

3. Any amount of training is better than no training. The more training the better. There are tons of resources out there. IJNet has a bunch. YouTube has a bunch. Follow training orgs and experts on Twitter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM33EEAszHA

Thank you for your response. The thing is, though, you are only supporting my point with this response.

You are basically saying, “See what happens when we put children into situations where we are certain that they are using this technology, without the interference of adults.”

And what I am arguing for is to structure OLPC in a way so that you can ensure children are using the computers for their intended purposes, without the issues that get in the way, like adults not letting them use it. Moreover, monitor these programs, which can include things like videotaping them.

This all began with me encountering a computer that is now less technologically advanced than the latest models (so this aspect of my criticism is now out of date), a person who managed a village computer lab who wasn’t equipped to sell me on the benefits of this machine, and me seeing a video in which the program’s founder said, basically, “It’s okay to just drop these computers off in villages.”

I’m fine with “village appropriate” technology being introduced to villages. I’ve done it myself. I’ve just seen so much irresponsible international development in which, basically, technology has been dropped into villages without any kind of mechanism to ensure its benefit that I’m not okay with Negroponte’s message.

Maybe I’m unique. But, I’d never put a video out there with the message that it is actually okay to drop technology on a village.

This does not mean that Negroponte’s work isn’t important, and that he isn’t right about many things. I certainly respect much of what he has accomplished. I just think, particularly since he has been so important, that it is irresponsible to spread this message. I’m concerned that organizations with a lot of money and far worse management structures and practices will use that to argue for their own irresponsibility.

And if you read what I said to Michael, I think OLPC could be a good treatment for the symptoms of poor education (which I am sure the children who receive these computers will be grateful for), but I’m not sure this solves or prevents the disease that causes poor education.

Your response is a method of addressing the disease, as it is more than just making the computers available, which is what I am calling for.

First, I should say that I don’t in any way mean to take away from the important work you are doing, or the success you have had with the OLPC program. I don’t doubt the benefit or success of the program, and I appreciate your taking the time to speak of it here.

One thing I admire about the OLPC community I have interacted with is that there has been a lot of passion for the OLPC program, and just as important, responsiveness. I can’t say that for a lot of organizations out there doing international development work. Many tend to ignore criticism, and may not even be aware of it for lack of making awareness a priority.

Second, I think your criticisms are fair. I’m speaking based on limited experience. However, I don’t think that means my criticisms are completely off-base.

You demonstrate that you are in touch with the institutional problems that exist in education, from poor leadership among policymakers down to unqualified and uncommitted teachers. So, I won’t criticize you for being out of touch, by any means. Your response shows that you have a lucid understanding of the issues.

What concerns me, though, is that the solution you put forth is to 1. Provide technology and leave it up to the institutions that are already failing to manage this technology, and 2. As far as I can tell, not build in a mechanism that pushes the institutions toward solving their fundamental problems to reduce their need for such programs, but instead circumvent the fundamental problem.

If the aim is to improve the net result of education, it appears OLPC is successful. But how does this solve the problem of education itself?

Maybe what the world needs is more international organizations making cheap, “village appropriate” educational technology available to developing countries. I’m just concerned, based on the way I see money wasted to the tune of billions of dollars in international aid, that I can’t help but fear this as a model for International Development to follow.

And remember, I’m very much pro international aid, and getting technology in the hands of people. Especially kids. I’m not saying that OLPC should stop making these computers available. I’m just from a mindset that there should be a program on top of it that ensures they are used for their intended purposes.

I’m just concerned that this addresses the education gap without getting at that gap’s root causes, treating the symptoms more than preventing the disease.

Again, not to diminish your work or success. I’m not closed-minded to OLPC. I’d just like to see your work paired more with the kind of work I’m talking about.

And hopefully, OLPC proves me wrong, as this generation grows up to be more advanced, and move its countries forward in ways that could never have been possible.

I’ve just seen too many projects fail because the gatekeepers weren’t critical to the success of the projects and did not buy in for me to be confident long-term.

Perhaps OLPC is the exception.

Make it a few children and then see how to work with it. How it engages them. How they learn.

Unless you have seen that, why comment on something that you have not experienced?

If children do not learn as much with OLPC as they can, its usually because adults come in their way.

For left to them, its like a Nintendo that rather than simply playing games, helps children learn, with curiosity while having fun.

If you really see that, you will say different things..

Until then, it may be worthwhile to experience it.

No, I was not involved with Ghana’s deployment of OLPC. And what you saw there is primarily because Ghana did not let the children own OLPC laptops.

Thanks much

On funding, you keep saying “they” spend all this money. OLPC doesn’t spend money, it doesn’t have it to spend for a start. Countries and their development partners spend money, or rather, invest in education. These are not free handouts, they are choices made by educators, administrators, politicians, parents. OLPC cannot direct countries how to conduct their own affairs. It is up to them.

What we can do is promote universal access to education, where no child is left out, and promote better learning, namely the “1 to 1 approach” in ICT for education, whether that be our XO laptop or any other device. So if you have found our laptops are sitting around in a school office not being used then that school is clearly not adopting the OLPC approach, which is to put the device in the hands of the child and leave it there, for the child to use, to learn and to use with her friends, for her to TAKE HOME and share with her family, her community.

You have made no mention of the in-built connectivity of the XO itself, or of the software it ships with, which enables children to use every on-board application in wireless collaboration. And Nicholas is right about truancy. In my own patch, in the Solomon Island’s remote Marovo Lagoon, kids have had XOs for three years now and the dedicated principal in Patukae School, Brian Bird, will tell you when the XOs came, the kids came back too and have stayed. There is lots of evidence of this and other benefits (and challenges) if you just use a search engine.

Of course we need teacher training, but our goal is to empower children in societies where teaching is typically poorly paid, has low status yet sucks up the bulk of education budgets in salaries. In once Pacific country up to half the teachers are themselves illiterate or one grade above the children they are teaching. In another teachers only turn up on pay day. Of course we need better teaching — of course we do — we have always said that, it’s all about setting people on a path of life-long learning isn’t it, for kids, for adults, both for them and for better long term economic outcomes for their country. But in terms of immediate needs, we need dedicated principals who can lead their communities, mentor their staff, and who put children first. Community responsibility and leadership is the magic bullet — not technology.

OLPC is not a magic bullet, or a panacea but it is a catalyst. For governments and education departments and schools, embarking on OLPC asks them to confront the status quo and to ask themselves: how can we do better? Where ever a country is trying to deliver to its children better access to information, knowledge, skills, and technology, that’s a country on a path out of “developing” nation status.

With respect, you need to do more research instead merely profess goodwill while serving up wide ranging criticism based on a field trip and a video.

Try starting here: http://bit.ly/noxyhP