# data[].attributes.body
Page 2

# data[].attributes.body
Page 1

# data[].attributes.headline
Lessons on the process of interviewing someone?

# data[].attributes.subject
Lessons on the process of interviewing someone?

# data[].attributes.body
I am green. I have not interviewed many people in my life but I think my authentic-self was endearing to Dr. Gasman. Before I started the recording, she mentioned I was "funny" and smiled a lot at my clumsiness. We both let our shields drop and started talking in an unguarded manner.

It's difficult to stay silent and suspend judgment. I had to almost pinch myself to keep quiet at times. I wonder if I had allowed for a few pauses if I could've gotten deeper.

Suspending judgment might have helped me understand her leadership better. I felt myself assessing the levels of conversation. I would think, "This is definitely Level 2 because she is railing against the feedback from the Washington Post Article." Had I suspended judgment there, I might've asked a question that could have taken us deeper.

I went off script. To stay on would've derailed the "U" process. I think we got pretty deep. We might've reached Level 4 at a moment. There was definitely a vulnerable moment in there where she is incredibly trusting. Her voice gets very low and she discusses a painful moment in her life.

Time frames can be limiting. It would be nice to keep an open time frame to let it unfold without limit. At the end, after the recording stopped, she invited me back. We both felt we could talk and talk. It felt like there were several branches of conversation that would've served us both.

I can get better at this in time and with practice.

I enjoyed the process

# data[].attributes.headline
What did I learn about my understanding related to how Theory U helped me to learn how to “suspend” my point of view?

# data[].attributes.subject
What did I learn about my understanding related to how Theory U helped me to learn how to “suspend” my point of view?

# data[].attributes.body
I learned that suspending my point of view will take practice. I like being liked. And, in this conversation, there were several points in which I rested at Level 1. I wanted to agree and I often did. But, had I remained silent, ideas might have come forward that were new and presenced. I think Level 1, downloading, quickly propels the conversation along and does not produce anything of value. It perpetuates the status quo.
Level 2 existed in Dr. Gasman's response to the adversarial emails and comments from colleagues. She felt frustration and the response was to sever ties with the system or those colleagues.
Level 3 surfaced in the tweet where the conversation on gun carrying teachers was introduced. She called on faculty to speak up, whatever their beliefs, to start the conversation, and offer their input.
I do not think we reached Level 4, but a vulnerable moment happened when she talked about giving up feelings of guilt over the right to speak out on racial issues. She is letting go of caring about perceptions to begin to presence the change she is working for. She is moving toward the person who can make the change happen.
I think that to gain ground in her pursuit, she will need to be open to empathetic listening and conversations where she sits in her colleague's shoes and finds their source. Through this, a conversation may take place that could lead to innovation in her pursuit. If she gets to level 4 with her colleagues it will likely come from a shared vision and intrinsic buy-in.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reflections and the influence my own leadership development.

# data[].attributes.subject
Reflections and the influence my own leadership development.

# data[].attributes.body
I learned that valuing your team and input from all people on that team is powerful. Dr. Gasman believes in growing her team, whether they have "pedigrees" or not. She believes in opportunity for all on her staff.

I was reflective during the conversation about the power of listening and suspending judgment. Judgment is a conversation stopper. Levels 1 and 2, which were present in our discussion at different points, lead to a stalemate and frustration. There is not true forward motion, only nothing (Level 1) or oppositional neutralization of growth (Level 2). To be successful as a leader, I must make people believe that what we are creating together is something they truly want, that it will make the world better.

Additionally, I learned that to presence the future I believe in, I have to see it and then build it. It cannot be an aimless lashing at the air in the hopes I get what I want. It will take design and belief. It will take me and it will take others and all the power that holds.

# data[].attributes.headline
Insights into her leadership in relation to situations and followers (through a narrative of poignant moments in our discussion)

# data[].attributes.subject
Insights into her leadership in relation to situations and followers (through a narrative of poignant moments in our discussion)

# data[].attributes.body
The interview with Dr. Gasman was insightful. When asked how she leads and advocates for change, she talked about her belief in teams and listening to the voices of others. She stated she brings people together and convenes groups to gather collective intelligence. I concluded from our conversation that she is not concerned with the opinions of others or having her feelings hurt. She allows for input and frank conversation. It was not clear which level of conversation her teams engage in.
At one point in our discussion, we talked about her recent Washington Post article on the lack of minority faculty at majority Ed institutions. In the article, she, "told the secrets" of hiring processes for Higher Ed institutions and this generated an overwhelming response in the form of over 7,000 emails. We talked about how this is her form of leadership. When she believes in something, she has learned to not worry about the response but to start the conversation. A colleague who she values deeply advised her to "fight".
Another example of her igniting conversation is a tweet she sent out on the current issue of teachers carrying guns at schools. She called on the faculty at UPenn to use their voice and stay relevant. She felt she may be slapped on the hand but was unconcerned about it because she believes in her cause.
Additionally, we discussed a time when she spoke at an informal luncheon and was challenged by a small group of African American women for having given a speech that should have been delivered by an African American woman, in their opinion. Her comments to them were that white women need to be a part of the conversation to bring the needed change and awareness to the issue. Her point was appropriate and a great conversation starter.
She was clearly feeling the disappointment of having faculty and those she had devoted her life to challenging her openness and efforts. I felt the moment described by Ursula Versteegen in the example from the Presencing Institute Toolkit. In the example, she describes the moment she, "jumps off the bridge." I could feel her holding on and was hoping to get to a deeper level in Scharmer's "U". I would need to take a chance, to jump. This was not easy for me. I was honored to be invited to the table to have this discussion and did not want to jeopardize the flow. I asked, "As you said before, we can't have everything. With your goals in mind, what do you think you'll need to give up to reach your goals?" She said colleagues who are stuck in the system and went deeper to state she needed to let go of the guilt related to being a white woman who is an authority on minority (predominantly black) issues. This was another opportunity for Level 4, and I was headed down that road, but her next appointment loomed and she was in need of a bathroom break. After we stopped the recorder, she invited me back and said she'd make room in her schedule. I might get that opportunity, yet. The concept of guilt and its role in leadership is one I'm very interested in.

# data[].attributes.body
Ellen Jenkins
Drexel University

Interview Date: 02/28/18
Time: 11:30am
Place: Penn Center for Minority Serving Institutions, St. Leonard's Ct. Upenn.
Context: Face to Face

# data[].attributes.headline
Interview  Marybeth Gasman, UPenn Graduate School of Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Interview  Marybeth Gasman, UPenn Graduate School of Education

# data[].attributes.body
Judy & Howard Berkowitz Professor of Education
Director, Penn Center for Minority Serving Institutions
Higher Education Division
Graduate School of Education
University of Pennsylvania

# data[].attributes.body
Worth a listen!
Download and play in a new window.