1) What was the setting and nature of the issue?

2) What specific event triggered the situation?

3) Who were the key individuals or groups involved?

4) What were their roles and motivations?

5) What perspectives or priorities did each person bring to the situation?

6) How did communication patterns influence relationships and actions?

7) Were there conflicts, alliances, or misunderstandings?

8) How did team members respond to the leadership actions?

9) How similar or differently did leaders and followers viewed the problem?

10) How did these actions influence team morale and productivity?

11) What were some noticeable shifts in team dynamics?

12) What was the outcome of the situation? Was it resolved, left ongoing, or abandoned?

13) What were the key lessons learned from this situation

As the youngest teacher in the department, I had to explain to this teacher why we needed this change. I showed him examples and assured him that the change wasn’t as difficult as it seemed. I started by using encouragement, acknowledging the good work he has been already doing. Then, I explained how using the "4 levels of feedback" could help students improve intrinsic motivation and self-reflection skills.

Over a month, I worked with this teacher on essay marking, helping them become comfortable with the new method.

Before joining, I met the ST and get to know her challenges. A teacher from the team welcomed me and chatted with me.

I thought the team was misunderstood, so I positioned myself to teach the class the teachers refused to. I established discipline, rapport, and parent partnerships.

During EPMS sessions, I listened to individual teachers’ perspectives. I ensured one voice during meetings and rostered each meeting by team member, regardless of age or experience, to ensure inclusivity.

In the first year, I assigned different classes to teachers to highlight their strengths and deployed them accordingly. I involved all teachers in learning to set quality papers and shared resources on a common Google Drive.

The team is now working together, with each member in charge of an event. While divisions remain, the team is striving to be a whole unit and achieve greatness.

The key lesson is to listen to multiple perspectives, investigate, and empathize with team members to understand them better.

I continue to learn and hope to lead the team effectively.

She was assigned to teach higher primary students but struggled with key responsibilities. She often missed deadlines for submitting exam papers, could not cope with the daily marking, and failed to provide her students with the full set of prescribed worksheets, which affected their preparation and practice. Additionally, she did not monitor her students’ progress effectively.

During review sessions with her RO, she acknowledged her shortcomings and indicated a willingness to improve. With encouragement, advice and supervision from her RO, her work showed slight improvement. However, when left unsupervised, she quickly reverted to her old habits, demonstrating a lack of sustained effort.

To motivate her and support her professional growth, she has been reassigned to teach lower primary students and is now working under a different RO.

The key lesson is supervision alone won’t create lasting change. We must understand the causes of low motivation, provide support, set clear goals, and encourage accountability to help the teacher improve.

During department meetings, he would be very blunt about his thoughts and opinions with regards to department directions and suggestions from other colleagues in the department. We thought perhaps, after a term, he would come to realise that things don’t work this way in this school but we observed no change in him. Perhaps he thought he was being helpful but the several of the department members felt very unhappy with him and his tactless ways, and came forward to speak to me about it separately. Even some of the other departments heads also came to speak to me about how they were rubbed the wrong way by him.

As a newly appointed HOD then, I cannot deny that I dreaded talking to him 🫣 but I believe I had to at least let him know about how uncomfortable he is making his fellow colleagues feel and to find a way to work with him.

So during the mid-year work review session, I spoke to him about what happened and asked of his valued experience in handling such a situation. He also explained that he thought being direct was the most helpful way for the department to grow and he actually didn’t realise it was causing the rest of the members to feel so uneasy. He didn’t realise that his tone was off-putting to the rest of the colleagues. He also explained that he felt left out mostly as the department members were not willing to speak with him and he didn’t want to come across as ‘needy’ by trying to strike up conversations with them. He has never been given this feedback and was quite taken aback by it. But at least he wasn’t defensive about the feedback.

We worked out a plan for him to first get to know his department mates by taking time to chat with them and set goals for him to work more closely with his teammates in terms of department initiatives. Slowly, he did gain the trust and respect of our department mates. In time, he also took up team IC of some departmental projects and has started to work amicably with department mates.

Hence, the school decided to groom me by giving me an internal appointment as a SH for VIA at first while the role as a SH/ML was covered by a non-willing teacher in the unit.

As an internally appointed SH/VIA, I have to work with very experienced teachers. While I was a mere GEO3 then, all my members were GEO5 teachers. I learned the hard way as I was tasked to "revive" the VIA in the school. I have to come out with the policy and framework for VIA in the school.

I spoke to the members in the team and tried to get to know every one of them, however, they are not willing to open up to me. Every VIA task/work that was given to them were taken as "additional workload" for them and they will do the bare minimum.

I found it hard and honestly almost gave up. However, I learned that communication and guiding/mentoring as a leader is very important. I started to really get to know every member individually beyond work. So when, I go up to them, I did not talk about work, instead I get to know them as a person. This helps me in getting to know their routines, their work style and many more.

Then, when task is allocated to them, I individually sat beside them to go through and handhold them to get the task done properly. I discuss with them and listen to their ideas. Together, we implement the ideas that was contributed to them and made them own the task. I affirmed their work done and gave them that empowerment, the voice and the choice to carry out their ideas and of course with guidance.

They felt appreciated, and then are more willing to contribute and cooperate with me. Upon seeing what my team and I (VIA) have achieved, my SLs decided to change my portfolio to internally appointment SH/ML the following year.

Again, I am facing the same problem. Being the youngest in the team (GEO3) leading a group of experienced teachers (GEO5 and above).

I have learned that building the culture and trust within the team is very important. Hence, that was what I did first. It was a smoother journey this time however, there are a new set of challenges.

As the team is made up of very experienced teachers, I am aware that I need to boost up my pedagogies and assessments. They will always want to teach the "good" classes. So as a leader, I walk the talk. I proved to them that taking the "tail end" classes is also fulfilling. I proved to them that by establishing strong TSR with the students, building the rapport with parents, the "tail end" students can also produce results.

To cut the story short, all of them bought in and now are more open to take any classes. The fixed mindset now have shifted to growth mindset.

I will end with a quote here;

‘A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way.’ – John C. Maxwell

In our department meetings, we didn’t have formal meeting notes (NOM) in the past, relying instead on memory to recall important points, which I found inefficient. I believed it would be beneficial to have NOM recorded for reference, so I proposed that they be taken for every meeting and vetted by both our ST and myself. I explained the rationale to the team, and most were on board. However, the ST saw it as an added burden and questioned why we needed this practice now, especially when the HOD had never implemented it. I tried to explain, but perhaps she saw my request as an attempt to prove myself as a newly appointed KP. To address her concern about the extra workload, I offered to take on the vetting process myself or enlist help from other KPs.

However, the ST was worried that I would report her reluctance to the SLs, and she went to the P to complain about me being difficult to work with. This led to a meeting where the P questioned me about the situation. I was frustrated and upset, feeling that I had done my best to address her concerns. I even spoke with KPs from other departments who reassured me that my approach was the right one.

Ultimately, the issue was resolved when other KPs stepped in to assist with the vetting, recognizing that I was overwhelmed as a newly appointed KP managing the department on my own. Despite this, my relationship with the ST remained strained, as she viewed me as a competitor. I, however, maintained a professional approach. I focused on getting the job done, recognizing that my role wasn’t about competing for popularity, but about leading the department effectively and achieving our shared goals for the school and students. I realized that as long as I acted with integrity and did my best, there was no need to let others' actions upset me. After all, I can’t control how others respond.

At the end of P4 each year, schools will offer P5 subject combination as option for parents. These option includes taking Higher MT or FMT at P5. There will be a handful of less than 10 that will be taking FMT at P5, as they are deemed to be not able to cope with the standard curiculum. Some we did standard MT at P5 can be offer FMT when they progress to P6.

Situation:

Students in P5 FMT are accessing lesser curriculum at P5 and the motivation to learn is not high. When they progress to P6 FMT, they will be overwhelmed by students whom have access the standard p5 MT for a year. These students have higher level of literacy and oracy as compared.

I have to invest a class, a teacher and setting P5 FMT paper that has very little help to students.

Proposed action:

I decided that we can not offer P5 FMT across and allow students who have not done well in P4 to join the main MT classes.

Challenge:

How am I able to bring forth the ideas to school leaders for support?

1. Validating with outcomes (students doing better with richer content.

2. Resource management is optimized.

How am I able to convince teachers.

1. Be open and clear with why I am proposing so.

2. Show clearer eg and addressing different issues that teachers may have.

In the end, we manage to convince and push forth the decision and teachers have stronger buy-ins.

Using the previous SOWs as an example, I guided them to see that how the TOS can help us helps us ensure that we do not repeat what we have taught but build and expand on the students’ skills and knowledge. Moreover, to ensure that the task of resource creation does not become too overwhelming, I decided that we will, as a team, come up with a 10 week plan (T1 to T4) on what is being taught and always ensuring that we align it to the given specifications. Doing this did 2 things, first it greatly reduced the burden and stress of coming up resources on our own. Second and most importantly, it bonded as a team. We go in with the mindset that we are one team, and our students are at the centre of what we do.

From this, I learned the importance of adaptability and empathy. By empowering my team and fostering a collaborative spirit, we were able to embrace the new curriculum with the comfort that we can rely on one another. More importantly, the experience reinforced my belief that leadership is less about authority and more about guiding, supporting, and inspiring others to achieve a shared vision.

Given the scale and complexity of this initiative, we had to coordinate closely with the IP HODs from all subject departments, facilitate discussions, deploy subject teachers, lead PD sessions, and oversee the weekly three-hour interdisciplinary lessons and learning journeys. However, as anticipated, the lack of lead time for structured planning created significant challenges.

The most pressing challenge emerged as we rolled out the programme while still refining its framework. The IP HODs, responsible for their respective subjects, found themselves at odds with the interdisciplinary structure due to the curriculum hours it consumed. Tensions grew as HODs expressed dissatisfaction with last-minute changes and perceived loss of subject-specific instructional time.

Compounding the issue was the limited time for communication and stakeholder engagement. Teachers and HODs struggled with the rapid implementation, and resistance to change became evident. The core taskforce, including myself, was viewed negatively, as many teachers felt decisions were being imposed rather than collaboratively developed.

Due to diverging perspectives, each group often brought different priorities to the discussions and eventually it led to communication breakdown. The core taskforce focused on the enactment of the interdisciplinary curriculum, ensuring alignment with 21st-century competencies and holistic education goals, while IP HODs are concerned about the disruption to their respective curricula and the potential impact on student learning outcomes in their disciplines. Teachers on the ground are frustrated by the last-minute deployments and adjustments, feeling left out of decision-making processes.

Communication breakdowns further fueled tensions. Meetings often ended in disagreements, with some perceiving the core team as defensive. Misunderstandings arose, leading to strained relationships and a lack of trust.

A turning point occurred during a particularly difficult review meeting in July 2024. The meeting ended with some HODs walking out in frustration, expressing their unwillingness to continue planning for 2025 unless their concerns were addressed.

Recognizing the gravity of the situation, I took the initiative to create a structured platform for open dialogue. To prevent further resentment, I encouraged the HODs to document their concerns, assuring them that these would be presented to the school leadership for consideration before moving forward. Though some remained skeptical, most participated, and their feedback was formally consolidated.

To address the leadership gap, we requested a school leader to be directly involved in future planning meetings. This ensured that critical decision ( beyond the authority of the core team) could be made promptly, reducing unnecessary friction.

However, tensions remained, and full alignment was not achieved. Differences in perspectives continued to surface, and skepticism about the programme's execution lingered. ( it does seemed to me that this is a "wicked problem" which has no solutions in the short term)

Despite these ongoing challenges, the team managed to move forward with planning for 2025. While collaboration improved in some areas, team morale and dynamics remained a work in progress. 

Here are the lessons I have learnt in the process: 

1. Building trust is foundational – Providing structured opportunities for dialogue, even in time-pressed situations, is essential for long-term buy-in.

2. Rapport among middle managers is critical – The success of interdisciplinary initiatives depends on strong working relationships among middle leaders. Friction at this level inevitably trickles down, affecting teacher morale and overall implementation.

3. School leaders play a pivotal role – There are instances where only school leaders can mediate conflicts and provide clarity. Engaging them earlier in the process can prevent prolonged disputes and misalignments.

4. Meaningful change takes time, and genuine buy-in requires sustained effort in communication, trust-building, and shared ownership.

Leading this initiative was a steep learning curve for me, but it provided me with invaluable insights into the complexities of driving large-scale curriculum change.

I was tasked to help teacher A who struggles with poor performance grades consecutively under different ROs and I, being new to the school was seen as a fairer and non-judgemental figure to be her RO.

I was not given any information about Teacher A as the school hoped that I could provide a new, non-biased perspective and role to help her. Not long after, I realised Teacher A was very helpful in departmental tasks and often lend a helping hand to her colleagues for non-teaching duties. She also had rather good rapport with students and parents. However, when I observe her lessons, I realised her lessons are not incoherent and she often got led astray by students' questions. She would also provide wrong explanations to certain questions which left the students confused or ended with the better students questioning on her answers. She used old lesson materials without tweaking to new context and for topics she was in charge of, the team had a hard time helping her to amend the notes and slides. She also struggled in examination paper setting where multiple drafts would be bounced because the amendments and suggestions were never completely addressed or old issues popped out in the middle of the vetting process.

To help Teacher A with the AFIs, apart from my sessions (once every 1-2 weeks) with her where I shared tips on lesson planning, lesson design, classroom management and exam paper setting and follow up with her plans, in the following year, we had experienced or strong classroom teachers to co-teach with her so that she could pick up their strengths as well as gave her immediate feedback on each single lesson in hope that she can rectify them promptly.

Teacher A appeared to be receptive about the feedback as she was always jotting down notes and nodding. However, she was quite affected with the arrangement as she felt her status as a teacher was challenged in class. In addition, there was minimal improvement in the various aspects she was guided in and other MM in the department concluded that it was a genuine case of lack of ability and due to the repeated underperformance, she was advised to reconsider this career.

Eventually, Teacher A left unhappily but the team seemed to be rather relieved as they were spared from additional workload such as amending her work or mentoring her. I, on the other hand, was very upset and I constantly wondered if her case could have been managed better? For example:

1) Less invasive intervention or mentoring (but other MMs' concerns were students as they saw students bearing the consequences of the compromised lessons)

2) Be more patient and set one area to work on each term rather than having multiple feedbacks regularly?

3) Be mindful of how the other team members are involved in the development of certain officers and ensure good camaraderie before involving them too much

4) Use appreciative inquiry?