What leaders can (and cannot) learn from scientists 

Back in my teenage years, I hated science. Or, more specifically, I hated science class. As far as I could tell, the point of biology, chemistry, and physics was just to memorize facts and figures, then regurgitate them on exam day. (And while I had no problem memorizing guitar licks or my part in the school play, I couldn’t for the life of me remember the steps of the Krebs cycle or which gasses were the noble ones). Nowadays, though, I can’t get enough science (or, at least, stories about science). I always look forward to Tuesday’s science section in the New York Times, for example. On the weekend, I tune in to Radiolab and Hidden Brain on NPR, and I’m always fascinated to hear about the human drama that goes into every discovery or invention. It turns out that science is all about the journey — and it’s a messier and much more interesting journey than I ever realized, full of trial and error, twists and turns, frustration and resilience. 

As a nonscientist, I’m most impressed by  the scientific methodology. Scientists — or teams of scientists, usually — will pose questions, make observations, come up with hypotheses, argue about them, conduct experiments, analyze the data, and draw conclusions, only to have them tested further by peers to see if the findings can be replicated. Progress tends to be slow, experiments often fail to get results, and it may take years to solve a problem or validate an idea. Still, when it comes to science, people are patient. The public understands that complicated research can’t be rushed. 

When it comes to school and district improvement, though, we tend to rush everything. Typically, the process goes something like this: