|
CULT PERSONALITIES
AND THE
SPECIALTY SCHOOL OR PROGRAM
By: Frank J. Menhams
[Frank Menhams, MA, is an educational consultant
with 15 years experience working in specialty schools and
programs. He was former program director of the Cascade School.
Frank also evaluates specialty programs and schools. He can
be reached at 530-356-4747 or fmenhams@frontiernet.net.]
One topic of discussion within the Specialty Schools and Programs
industry is that of the relevance of a "cult" leader
of which any specific program is dependent upon for a continued,
successful life. From the beginning, Specialty Schools and
Programs have had a few visionaries who had a dream, and then
materialized it. The family tree of both the Specialty School
and the Wilderness Program is traceable to a handful of strong-willed
individuals. As time passed, some of their "select"
-if you will- progeny set out to start their own hybridizations
of the original models, usually diluting some original components,
and adding new fresh ones. While the Schools began to change,
the need for a dynamic leader did not; virtually every Specialty
School or Program has a unique individual leading that institution.
The question being brought up today, is can a program continue
once their original "leader" leaves, retires, or
dies?
What is it about our industry that places so much weight on
the personality of an individual that a robust program can
implode and cease to exist due to this person's leaving the
School or Program?
In the past several years, some of the original Specialty
Schools and Programs shut have down entirely, while many more
go through radical re-configuring with Executive Directors
coming and going as often as a new issue of the Woodbury Reports™
is published. The seeming cause and effect of the departing
"cult figure," and the demise of the program, is
a natural logical thought- progression. Why is this so? It
just doesn't make sense that when the leader of a company
moves on, the company should falter and die. When companies
such as Disney or HP release their CEO's, the company just
doesn't roll over and fold! Why is our industry so different?
Inbreeding!
There are several factors to look at in this discussion; the
original programs began in the sixties and seventies when
gestalt and confrontational therapies were in vogue. Loosely
termed "emotional growth" schools, these new enterprises
were relatively secretive, (think Synanon) keeping their newfound
modalities of helping youth as close a secret as possible.
This was not just within the budding industry; it was also
within the school itself. Very few "anointed" ones
received the support to step up and learn the "secrets"
of the founders. Employees, as well as parents, were kept
out of the communications loop of the privileged few. I believe
this management style was the reason for the idea of a "cult-personality"
needing to be at the helm of a truly potent school or program.
This management style is also responsible for the demise of
those schools who continue that early style.
The management style I just described allows for little, if
any, succession options. As I mentioned in my previous article,
the need for an exit strategy is paramount to a school or
program that wants to exist beyond one generation of management.
In keeping their expertise limited to a select few, the old-style
cult personalities effectively lead the way to their own extinction;
much like any inbred system.
The key to healthy survival of a system is constantly introducing
new thoughts, ideas and "blood" into that system.
That way it continues to replicate itself, albeit in a slightly
evolved form. The importance of preparing younger staff for
the responsibilities they one day will hopefully elect to
incur is tantamount to the continued success of any school
or program. Further, through the sharing of hard-won knowledge
comes the implied message of trust, and with trust comes empowerment
and self-esteem. It is important to remember that the students
will reflect the adults they are with, whether school staff
or the adults in a family. Management that supports and empowers
their employees will have a student culture that embraces
the very same tenants; "as is above, so is below."
This is clear when you hear about the demise of the student
cultures in some of the now-defunct programs; as the management
became sicker and weaker, the student culture did as well,
until the school or program had to close out of the basic
need to keep the students safe.
Times change, and fortunately many of the "offspring"
of the initial schools continue to evolve. The concept of
"emotional growth" lives on today, often in a very
effective manner. It has toned down and merged with more clinical,
hence teachable, methodologies. With a new paradigm come new
problems. Instead of cult-leadership, some schools are swinging
the other way with committees running their schools at a lumbering
pace. The good news is that there is a fervent desire not
to make the same mistakes as their predecessors. Thought,
discussion and most importantly change is in the air. Knowledge
is shared on both micro and macro levels; from the groups,
to the staff and at NATSAP conferences, the modality of secrecy
and fear that once permeated our industry is shunned for the
healthier and far more compassionate models that we witness
in the industry today.
Copyright ©
2005, Woodbury Reports, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(This article may not be reproduced without written approval
of the publisher.)
Return to Strugglingteens.com
Home |
