Blog Archives

Same Team - Different Roles

8/27/2013

It is almost the start of another school year. What better time to review the role of the Chair of the Board and the five cardinal rules that govern her or his relationship with the Head of School?

To begin with, let's be clear about what is not the role of the Chair. The Chair of the Board is not responsible for the functioning of the school, nor is she or he personally responsible for the performance of the Principal. As we have previously discussed, it is the responsibility of the entire Board to oversee the performance of the Head and the functioning of the school. If the Chair presumes to represent the Board to the Head and administration, then she/he is either acting unnecessarily, or is abusing her/his authority. A Head who is obliged to acquiesce to what the Chair demands is either working for the Chair alone, or working for both the Board and the Chair. Neither situation is appropriate.

If the Principal is the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the school's operations, then the Chair, as John Carver puts it, is the CGO (Chief Governance Officer). In that role, the Chair is responsible for the functioning of the Board and is responsible for the "integrity of the Board process". In this, the Chair must work in partnership with all Board members to keep things functioning smoothly. The Chair and all Board members are trustees for the "ownership" of the school. Therefore, they collectively bear responsibility for the integrity of the governance process. The worst mistake that a Head can make, (and I have been guilty of doing this myself with disastrous results), is to assume that the Chair is an effective conduit of information in both directions. Head/Chair/Board/Chair/Head communications is often one of the most glaring examples of "broken telephone" that you can imagine!

So what are the five basic principles that should govern the relationship among the Chair, the Head, and the Board?

1. The Chair keeps the Board on track, and the Head keeps the school on track.
If the Head leaves governance issues to the Chair, then she/he should leave operational issues to the Head!

2. Both the Chair (Board) and the Head must make the Mission and the welfare of the school their first priority.

3. The Chair and the Head must both see their role as a collaborative professional partnership. They should not be seen as either adversaries or "lovers".
Nothing undercuts the credibility of either the Head or the Chair than the perception that they are either at each other's throats or in bed together. Either way, people second guess every decision. The relationship between the Chair and the Head should never interfere with the relationship between the Head and the Board. Both the Chair and the Head are responsible to the entire Board, not to each other.

4. No surprises!
The Chair should hear important news from the Head first, not the media, parents, or other Board members. By the same token, the Head should hear about political or performance issues at the Board from the Chair first and not be blindsided at a meeting.

5. Confidence and Confidentiality
The partners should exude confidence in one another and keep all concerns, misgivings and disagreements in confidence. You hang together, or you hang separately!
If the Chair cannot work effectively with the Head, then the Chair should step down gracefully and if there is a performance issue with respect to the Head, that is the purview of the Board to handle, not the Chair.

I have worked with some great Chairs, but from time to time, every one of them has decided to "go it alone" in handling a concern or issue. Every time a Chair makes this decision, it drives a wedge between the Head and the Board. No matter how sensitive or explosive an issue is, it has to be aired in front of the entire Board, or the effective governance of the school is at risk

0 Comments

Ethical Leadership - to poach or not to poach?

8/20/2013

0 Comments

There are two weeks to go until school starts and I just had one of my teachers "poached". Now, don't get me wrong, I have lost teachers on the eve of the school year many times. It is an occupational hazard! One fall, I lost three. The first resigned in mid-August to follow her "heart" (read boyfriend) to another country (they subsequently married and are having a wonderful life on Vancouver Island); the second, after her husband got laid off, moved her family to Newfoundland where there were job opportunities for both of them; and, the third? Well, on the Friday evening of Labour Day weekend, she locked herself outside of her classroom on a second floor balcony, panicked, and jumped fifteen feet down into the quadrangle. She was laid up for six months. None of these were easy situations to address, but we did, with more or less success. My admin team hunkered down, found replacements, and life went on. But somehow, having a staff member recruited away at this time of year, is in a category all its own.

On an intellectual level, I understand the extrinsic motivation of both the teacher and the hiring school. She saw an opportunity to "trade up" to a more exclusive, high profile academic environment (and probably more money); the school, in the words of their administration, was "desperate" and needed to fill the position; and our school, faculty, and especially students were just "collateral damage".

As with most mainstream independent schools, this particular school belongs to a number of professional organizations. Their three principal affiliations make the following demands on their members. The first says: the school shall practice ethically in the areas of employment, admissions, [and] recruitment (students and staff); the second requires that: the school practices ethically and within the law in the areas of employment, admissions, [and] recruitment (students and staff) (not sure who copied from whom in this case!); and, the third states that: the school ensures that it is aware of any employment-related, binding contractual obligations of the candidate; and the school carefully avoids inducing or assisting in a breach of those contractual obligations.

So having sworn these oaths of ethical practice, how does a school spin violating them without a second thought? To be honest, on a purely practical level, I totally understand how a Head rationalizes making this kind of decision. Let's face it, her or his job is to recruit, develop and retain the best faculty and staff possible. Heads have an obligation to their students, parents and ultimately the Board to ensure that the programme is, and remains, the highest calibre possible. When being asked around the Board table, "why is our Math programme the pits?", the answer - "I was bound by Principles of Good Practice not to hire the best person I could." - demonstrates a strong sense of ethics and probably a weak sense for professional survival! At the end of the day, Heads will usually put the health of their own school ahead of the niceties of professional collaboration with their colleagues in other institutions.

That's the practical side. But what about our role to build and nurture an "ethical community" within our four walls? We expect our teams and coaches to observe the highest standards of good sportsmanship and fair play; we severely discipline incidents of plagiarism or cheating on tests; and, we trumpet our commitment to community service and environmental stewardship. We preach ethics to our students - we should practice ethics in our operations. Sometimes doing the right thing will cost us in the short term, but ultimately it is never a bad decision.

So, practically, what can a Head do when faced with this ethical conundrum? To begin with, you ask permission to immediately contact the current school to ascertain their contract status. If the candidate refuses permission, you politely thank them and remove them from consideration. If they say yes (which they should if they are the kind of staff member that you are looking for), you find out whether or not their current school will let them out of their contract. Why waste time pursuing someone who is not really available? There is an obvious downside for the candidate (their hand has been exposed to both schools) but that is really not your problem! If their current school gives you the green light (another warning sign!) then you can feel free to proceed with the process. No matter what the outcome, you have taken the high road.

Finally, when you are thinking of recruiting staff in the late summer, always remember the apocryphal story of the elusive Peter Kitchen. One summer, he was hired to teach French, given an advance for travel from the UK to Canada and then subsequently didn't show up in September. What makes this an even more cautionary tale, is that there were actually three Canadian independent schools that were expecting him to be on their faculty that Fall. As for PK? He collected his advances and continued his quiet teaching career somewhere in the Midlands. As far as I know, he is still in the market for a job across the Atlantic - but I don't think that I will be looking to him to replace the teacher I just lost!

0 Comments

Bringing down the hammer

8/13/2013

0 Comments

Summer always seemed so much longer when I was a child. The days were endless, the weeks seemed to stretch out forever and I really cannot remember a time that wasn’t sunny! I have always loved summer.

This July my family took a a little time out to spend at our cottage on Georgian Bay. Between swimming and sunning and climbing rocks with the boys, I spent a good deal of my time rebuilding a section of our docks.

I have to admit, there is something intrinsically satisfying about pounding nails. Unlike people, they generally go where they are needed, stay where they are put and, even when they get a bit rusty, continue to do the job that you ask them to! Definitely good for the soul!

Aside from this therapeutic hammering, I have been faced with an interesting engineering challenge over the past few years of tearing out an aging infrastructure that had been in place since the cottage was built in 1945 and starting from scratch with a new design, updated materials, and a clean slate. That is not to say that I didn’t have various generations of family critics who lamented the changes and ached for the “good old days” of stepping through rotten boards or tripping on uneven joints. But even they have appreciated the eventual outcome which has been a blend of the old and the new and which has provided the opportunity to stand on what was firm and had stood the test of time while appreciating the value of change and growth.

Schools are a bit like my dock. Once and a while you have to tear things out and start over, but for the most part, each school year sees a new and unique blend of the traditional and the innovative, skilled experience and energetic learning on the job and the wonderful dynamic that is created when differing approaches combine to create a wonderful learning experience for each child and young adult.

Boards and administrators sometimes neglect maintaining that balance at their peril. Changes in leadership in the administration or the emergence of a "reform" movement on a Board can sometimes sweep away much that is solid and serviceable in the haste to construct something new and shiny. Now don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in constructive growth and positive and thoughtful change. None of our schools should be allowed to rot (like my dock cribs had over time!) in the name of preserving traditional norms and structures. However, if change is to be truly transformative then it must first identify the still solid underpinnings and build upon them rather than tear everything out and start from scratch.

Although summers now seem much shorter than they did when I was a child, they still provide a welcome break in the routine to pause and reflect on what needs changing and what needs to be supported and preserved. As long as Boards and Heads see themselves not as agents of change, but rather as architects of growth and improvement, then all of our schools will continue to be adaptable to changing circumstance and sustainable through challenging times.

0 Comments

Going with the Flow

8/5/2013

1 Comment

After writing a series of personal confessions over the last couple of weeks on the shortcomings of the accreditation systems that I used to run, I figured that it was time to put someone else under the microscope: the disengaged Board member!

Now don't get me wrong. I have the utmost respect for every single volunteer member of a Board of an independent school, or any not-for-profit for that matter. They are generally selfless, committed, and altruistic to a fault. Having said that, they are not all necessarily effective at what they do. The problem is not desire, or dedication. The problem is that their approach and skill sets fall outside of the operational zone of the Board. The are either underprepared for the complex issues being discussed or, just as problematic, they are over qualified for the low level discussions and decision-making that the Board has focused on. What is the zone of performance for a successful and valuable Board member? It's really pretty simple. It all depends upon the operating style of the Board.

In his research on motivation and engagement, psychologist Mihaly Csíkszentmihályi summarized some not so surprising general findings about engagement and productivity in his book: Finding Flow. In essence, he identified what it’s like to be in the flow, which he described as the ultimate self-motivation. According to Csíkszentmihályi when people experience flow they typically:

are completely involved;
merge action and awareness - concentration is focused on what is being done and a single-mindedness takes over;
exclude distractions from their consciousness;
don’t worry about failure - they are too involved to be concerned about failure;
have a distorted sense of time - generally in flow people forget time, allowing hours to go by without any real awareness of their passage;
see the activity as an end in itself - activities which are seen as valuable in their own right, worth doing for their own sake.

Compare this to the culture of some Boards in which you might find people around the table who find the issues too challenging to tackle, become anxious, and defer to either a small committee (like Finance) or to the Head. The more that this happens, the more likely it is that the Board will get so dependent upon a few "experts" - the Head in particular, that it will become highly exposed to making strategic mistakes. Over the years, I have seen a number of high functioning schools which became so dependent on the expertise of their Head or Chair or Finance Chair that when one or more of those people left (which they all eventually do), things rapidly fell apart.

At the other end of the spectrum, in the same room, you will undoubtedly find other Trustees who see the issues being discussed as mundane, and operational rather than strategic. Rather than being anxious, they become bored and disengaged. In this case, valuable resources are being squandered resulting in declining attendance and eventually withdrawal from the Board. Both scenarios will push Boards away from an effective "partnership focused" (Head/Board) operating model to one that is "CEO/Executive Committee" focused. This result, as we have discussed before, is unsustainable for any school.

So how can Boards organize themselves so that these situations don't develop? Csíkszentmihályi found that flow can only be achieved when the work you are doing:

has clear goals requiring appropriate responses;
provides immediate feedback - there are clear measures of success or benchmarks to be achieved; and,
requires skills which are fully involved in overcoming challenges that are just manageable - high challenge matched with high skills.

To what extent do you think that the issues being addressed at your Board are in that zone that provides interesting and engaging challenges without being beyond the capabilities of most people around the table? Keeping in mind that you have two challenges - overwhelming your directors (anxiety) or underwhelming them (apathy).

In the first case, one answer might be to provide professional development for your Board members to address any perceived deficits in skills, experience or knowledge. Sometimes a brief primer or backgrounder on an issue (as pre-reading before the meeting) can get everyone up to scratch without taking extra time to stop and explain or answer basic questions during discussions.
In the second instance, it is the responsibility of the Chair and Head, as well as the Governance Committee to ensure that the issues being discussed are strategic and significant, not mundane and operational.

Take a look at the chart at the top of the blog. Does your Board (or Leadership Group; or Committee; or typical staff meeting; etc.) have flow?

1 Comment

Author

Dr. Jim Christopher
has been working with Boards and Heads on Governance issues for the past 15 years. He is a former Superintendent of Schools, ED of the Canadian Association of Independent Schools and Canadian Educational Standards Institute and is the author of a number of books and articles of education and governance. His latest book, Beyond the Manual: A Realist's Guide to Independent School Governance is available on iTunes or at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/388729

21stC Podcast

The Governance Corner

Same Team - Different Roles

Ethical Leadership - to poach or not to poach?

Bringing down the hammer

Going with the Flow

Author

Archives

Categories