Thomas Friedman, in an op-ed in the New York Times earlier this week asked the question: Why are we focusing on the teachers? Shouldn't we also be asking the parents to step up and take responsibility for their students? And, of course, the answer is yes, parents should take greater responsibility for their child's behavior. But, I'm afraid that the article misses the point.

Peel back almost any case study of a failed organization, and you'll see, more than anything else, an example of a failure of alignment. Alignment, at its simplest, is the entire organization working towards a common goal. It seems so simple, but in practice is really difficult to achieve. Why is this? Is it just some perverse quirk of human nature? Or can alignment happen?

On the Harvard Business School blog earlier this week, there was a post on how Steve Jobs Solved The Innovator's Dilemma. The posting was quite interesting -- and relevant to those of us in the social and public sector -- because essentially, it's not about profitability, it's about passion.

In a Harvard Business Review blog yesterday, Raymond V. Gilmartin argued that CEOs need a new set of beliefs. What's surprising -- especially for those of us that work in the mission-driven sector -- is that this even bears saying. But what struck me the most in the post was that Professor Gilmartin (the past CEO of Merck) argues that "Purpose, meaning, and recognition are more powerful motivators than economic self-interest, and large external rewards can reduce intrinsic motivation."

Why haven't we found the silver bullet that will magically, like Jaime Escalante in "Stand and Deliver," come and save our struggling schools? The answer, quite simply, is because there isn't one. While sound bites make good press, they make really bad education policy. What works in McLean, VA may not work in Anacostia, MD. And what works in Pittsford, NY, may not work in Rochester, NY. Real education reform needs to start with management reform. And here's how I propose we do it.

I promised an update of some of Dr. Norton's materials from his presentation in Mexico back in July. One of the first topics he spoke about is the concept of "managing strategy." It doesn't sound very revolutionary, but most organizations go through a process of developing a strategy every 3 to 5 years and then putting that strategy on a shelf. They may look at the strategy annually and then go through the strategy refresh process again in 3-5 years. Best practice organizations, according to David Norton, spend time managing their strategy.

It is often said that government agencies either do not have the discipline or are too easily distracted by operational issues to concentrate on measuring how well they execute their strategy. Agency heads pay lip service to strategy execution and never attend strategy review meetings, so "why should we care?" managers ask.

Well, I listened to a webinar the other day at which Peter Grace, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) Director of the Office of Strategic Planning and Management, discussed HUDStat, the Department's performance measurement and accountability process. HUDstat helps HUD comply with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act requirement that each agency conduct senior-led progress reviews on their priority goals.

With the news last week that U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden, a lot of the subsequent discussion has concerned whether Al Qaeda (undisputedly, a mission-driven organization) will continue to be an international terrorism force without its charismatic champion.

It occurred to me that the questions being asked to determine whether the terror organization has staying power in the wake of bin Laden's death are similar to those we ask when a mission-driven organization experiences a leadership change that may threaten the continued execution of its strategy management system.

City Newspaper in Rochester, New York, recently published an article about their soon-to-be-ex superintendent, Jean-Claude Brizard. As a native of Rochester, and someone who has had the privilege of working with Jean-Claude in the Rochester City School District, I wanted to highlight this article. I think it does an excellent job of laying out some of the challenges facing urban districts -- and urban superintendents -- today.

Dave Eggers had an op-ed in the New York Times this weekend entitled The High Cost of Low Teacher Salaries. In it, he argues effectively for paying teachers more. And in theory, I agree. Why wouldn't we pay teachers more for doing a job that is critical to the future of our country? Aren't our children worth it?