Beyond the Manual: Governance and School Leadership
Contact Us
  • Home
  • The Governance Corner
  • Learning to Learn Differently
  • Support for Schools

The Governance Corner

A forum for discussing issues in Independent School governance in the third decade of the 21st Century

Read all Posts

Sustainable Leadership: The Search

9/24/2013

1 Comment

 
Picture
Boards of Governors, even though they keep at arm's length from the operations of the school, do have one administrative responsibility. It is their exclusive duty to hire, nurture, evaluate and perhaps even fire the Head of School. How they handle this critically important role can have a profound impact on the health and longevity of the school.
When the announcement is made that a Head is leaving (retiring, stepping down, seeking other opportunities, etc.), the clock immediately starts ticking. Boards who have their act together usually time the announcement of the departure of the current Head (and the public accolades that go with it) to coincide with the public commencement of the "search" for her or his replacement. In recent years this has usually involved contracting with a search firm or individual head-hunter who is charged with creating a position description; advertising; screening applicants; helping to construct a short-list; and even often preparing questions. While slick and efficient (and often pricey!) there are a few inherent problems with handing over much of this singularly crucial task to an outsider. To begin with, no matter how in tune they are with your needs, they won't necessarily understand the nuances of your school culture (parents, faculty/staff, board) and, unless you make a concerted effort to bring all constituencies  into the process, you may end up with a poor fit. Secondly, many search firms have a "stable" of highly respectable candidates who get trotted out regularly but have never actually been chosen by a school. While these recruits can fill out a lean field for Board consideration, interviewing them is usually a waste of your time. Finally, even the most thorough agent will only want to spend a finite amount of time on your school. They will occasionally exert subtle pressure to choose someone from the short list, even if you don't feel that you have found the ideal candidate. I often hear from Boards who were told that this was "the best that they were going to get" for the position due to any number of reasons (location/reputation of the school; salary; availability; etc.). There is already a natural tendency among volunteer Boards to want to just get the process over with and, if they are being coached that to continue on would be almost pointless, they will often opt for closure rather than perfection.
Given that the success or failure of this process can be a turning point in the life of the school, Boards need to commit to spending the time to do it right. You can't simply buy a short-cut to your preferred outcome.
So, here are a few things to consider when you are setting up to search for a new Head.

1. Give yourselves lots of time. Start early (September for the next July), and don't set an artificial deadline to be finished. Your goal is to find an excellent candidate, not just to fill the chair.
2. Look around the table. Ask yourselves, "do we have the expertise to run this process on our own?" If you have experienced Board members with managerial or HR experience, maybe you can do it yourselves. If so, hire some additional clerical help to do the legwork and then design a process. If however, you don't think that you have the requisite skills, ask your current Head to contact schools that have recently conducted successful Head searches and find out who ran the process for them. 
3. Before you contract with a search firm, set your own goals for the process and "musts" for the finalists. You can get the most out of your headhunter if you have done your homework first. Sit down with your current Head, and faculty and parent reps and talk about what the ideal candidate will look like. Write a draft position description that reflects your needs and your school culture.
4. Find a search firm that is willing to work as your partner and not simply follow their own established process and timeline. You are paying for their expertise, but ultimately they are working for you, not the other way around. Share your "musts" and don't let yourselves be steered off-course.
5. Be willing to start over. If you get to the end of the line and you are not completely happy with the choices, reboot the process. Some schools will appoint an interim Head while they continue to search. Although this can bring the change process to a halt for the time being, it is preferable to the option of hiring the wrong person for the job.
6. Give yourselves lots of time! (don't worry this is a deliberate repeat!) Most trustees, if they are lucky, will only have the responsibility of choosing a new Head once during their tenure on the Board. It will be your biggest legacy to the school. Don't rush! Better to drag out the process, than to drag the bottom of the barrel.

One last piece of advice. Once you launch into this process, the next number of months will be tough on your current Head. Even if they are retiring after a long and successful career at your school, it is difficult to watch people be paraded through and the eventually successful candidate be publicly heralded as the "star" who is going to bring great changes and improvements to the institution. Boards can get so focused on transitioning a new Head in, that they forget about transitioning the old Head out, and providing appropriate opportunities for celebrating all that they have contributed to the school. Six months later, when the dust has settled and you have time to reflect and compare, it is far too late to say thanks.






1 Comment

Fixed mindsets: the enemy of good governance!

9/16/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture
As the school year gets underway, many Heads and Chairs are facing Boards that for one reason or another have fragmented into sub-groups. (I'd say "factions" but that makes it sound more like a civil war than a Board meeting!)  Often, these divisions have developed as a result of dealing with a particularly contentious issue during which the Board wasn't able to reach consensus but instead split into majority/minority views (aka "winners and losers"). This can result in people becoming entrenched in their viewpoints and ultimately defining not only their opponents but also themselves in a certain fixed way ("They are the group that only thinks about money, whereas we are the group that always puts kids first.")  You know the drill!

But you know, it doesn't have to be that way. People who read my L2LD Blog (www.learningtolearn-differently.com) will know that I am a big fan of Carol Dweck. Her thesis on nurturing a "growth mindset" in students is a powerful argument for directed, positive reinforcement of executive functioning skills and work ethic in students. She contrasts a growth mindset with that of a "fixed mindset", a difference which she defines this way:
In a fixed mindset students believe their basic abilities, their intelligence, their talents, are just fixed traits. They have a certain amount and that's that, and then their goal becomes to look smart all the time and never look dumb. In a growth mindset students understand that their talents and abilities can be developed through effort, good teaching and persistence. They don't necessarily think everyone's the same or anyone can be Einstein, but they believe everyone can get smarter if they work at it.

Dweck's contentions about students and learning are just as valid when we are considering Board dynamics. Like kids, we adults can also adopt a fixed mindset. In our cases in might not related to our view of our own intelligence or abilities but rather to our values and priorities. If we get hung up on always standing up for fiscal prudence - seeing ourselves as Horatio at the bridge defending the school from the free-spending hordes; or, locking ourselves in as the "champion" of teaching and learning - convinced that no amount is too much when it comes to adding staff or improving facilities or resources; then we sacrifice the flexibility needed to  take advantage of all of the skills and insights around the table.

Boards, like schools, need to have a "growth mindset". Trustees need to be convinced that creative, collaborative solutions can be reached through, to paraphrase Carol Dweck, "effort, good governance, and persistence". Easier said than done? You would be surprised how straightforward a process it can be to loosen the log jam that paralyzes some Boards. Years ago I had the privilege of teaching alongside William Watson Purkey Jr.(Self Concept and School Achievement, 1970) at the University of Connecticut. Bill Purkey (University of North Carolina) and my friend John Novak (Brock University) wrote Inviting School Success in 1984. Their work in invitational education struck the right note between empty praise, and potentially limiting criticism. They saw invitational education as a general framework for thinking and acting about what is believed to be worthwhile in schools.

Applied to Board governance, it articulates five basic principles: (1) All Board members are able, valuable, and responsible, and should be treated accordingly; (2) governance should be a collaborative, cooperative activity; (3) the process is the product in the making; (4) people possess untapped potential in all areas of worthwhile human endeavor; and (5) this potential can best be realized by places, policies, programs, and processes specifically designed to invite development, and by people who are intentionally inviting with themselves and others personally and professionally.

The secret is to see Board governance as a continuum rather than a series of isolated decisions or successfully or unsuccessfully implemented policies or initiatives. Good governance is a work in progress. It is a developmental process that can easily be derailed as soon as Board members put a value judgement on it (e.g. "fiscally irresponsible", "uncaring", etc.). One dimensional assessments of an idea, no matter how well intentioned or seemingly justified, stop the collaborative decision-making process and lead to not only fixed mindsets in Board members about their roles and influence, but also in the collective viewpoint on the limits on possible Board actions.
 
So the real question is: "Who is responsible to instil a growth mindset in all members of the Board"? Is it the Chair, who must try to balance viewpoints and seek out consensus decisions? Is it the Governance Committee, that needs to educate directors in collaborative decision-making and step in when they see the Board becoming polarized? Or is it the role of every single Board member to ensure that she or he keeps an open mind and resists the temptation to shut down debate with a caustic or dismissive comment? Obviously, to some extent it is all three; but ultimately, the Chair carries the greatest burden to manage the discussions and encourage a growth mindset among all members.

Will every Board reach its full potential? Who knows! But it is the collective responsibility of everyone around the table to keep their minds open to all of the possibilities and to have that flexible mindset that says:

"If we have the will, and the perseverance, there is definitely a way!"


0 Comments

Reality Check - Is your Board ready for the school year?

9/13/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture
Boards often do their annual navel gazing in June at the end of the school year. While this is a sensible time to reflect and consider the year past, it is often an exercise that has little traction by September when the Board reconvenes with new faces around the table and new issues to address.
As an alternative, many Boards start the year with a "pre-test". This gets them thinking about themselves and their role right from the start, and can have a major impact on how they operate for the remainder of the year.
Here are some ideas for a quick, ten question survey that will give you a starting point for your own reality check! Create your own scale (Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor) and see how you rate.

                                                               How do you rate your Board?

1. Diversity: The Board as a whole contains the necessary diversity of talents, skills, experience, interests, and demographics among its members to compliment one another and to strengthen the whole Board.

2. Structure: The Board is structured in such a way that individuals and/or committees assume a proper, active and effective role in the operation and activities of the Board. 

3.  Member Involvement: Members demonstrate a high degree of interest and engagement in the school and in their role and responsibilities as trustees; they are genuinely involved in the institution's challenges and prospects.

4. Knowledgeable: The members of the board are well informed about the institution and its place in the educational system and in the current social, economic and political trends affecting education.

5. Rapport: The members of the board have mutual respect for one another regardless of differences of opinion and maintain an effective working relationship with one another.

6. Sense of priorities: Board members, and the board as an entity, tend to be concerned with important, strategic, long-term issues rather than with operational concerns.

7. Sensitivities: The Board is representative of, or sensitive to, different constituencies and points of view in the larger school community.

8. Strength: The Board is strong and united enough to achieve effective educational policy decisions in the face of external political or community pressures.

9. Financial Support: The Board contains a reasonable number of members who provide or help to secure external financial support.

10. Accomplishment: The Board sets clear goals and has a genuine sense of progress and achievement in their attainment. Members of the Board derive personal satisfaction from their service to the school.

Let's face it, the real value in all of this is not to give yourself a passing grade (most of us lie "up" anyway!) but rather to put these key attributes of a high functioning board front and centre and in everyone's face before the real business of the school year begins.
Get your Board to live up to these expectations and the school can only benefit as a result!

0 Comments

Do you have Mr. Potter on your Board?

9/4/2013

2 Comments

 
Picture
Although they don't mean to be, the members of the Finance Committee are usually the biggest bullies around the Board table. It doesn't matter whether the Board is strategic in its outlook or mundanely mired in operations, at the end of the day it is almost always the Finance Committee that sets the tone for deliberations.
There are a couple of reasons for this. To begin with, most Board members are aware that they can make any number of questionable decisions on a wide range of issues, but that as long as they are cautious with respect to financial management, they cannot go too far wrong. It is this aspect of the Board's fiduciary responsibility that often gets the most attention. 
Secondly, for the average trustee, many of the financial discussions and decisions take place out of their comfort zone. They tune out during debates between zero-based and flat-lined budgeting, discussions of hard and soft income, and what constitute realistic projections of revenues and expenditures in the short, medium and long terms. Consequently, unless the Finance Committee is very careful, its members can ram through key financial decisions without the full understanding and authentic consent of many members of the Board.
Now you might think that that really wouldn't matter very much, but to be honest I have worked with many 
Finance Committees or their Chairs that have a great handle on the fiscal long view, but don't necessarily have a clear understanding of the minutiae of budget management at the school level. I have seen many Boards get into financial trouble by glossing over some key indicators that are relatively unique to schools. To begin with, they need to project accurately in January for the next September so that they can set fees. Once this is done, the Board must create at least three budgets, each contingent on differing scenarios with respect to enrolments. Unfortunately this can often be undercut by the mistaken wish to lock in budgets in early spring before actual revenues can be determined.
Another complicating factor is the nature of on-going faculty contracts. In most schools these are confirmed in late spring which then fixes their largest operating cost, regardless of final revenue numbers. Heads are often reticent to hedge their bets on rehiring staff for fear that they will lose them to another school. Consequently they tend to staff based on the best-case scenario, rather than the worst.
Thirdly, Finance Committees are sometimes caught off guard by the fact that a 2% increase on the compensation grid can actually translate into a 4 - 4.5% hike in salary costs when you factor in experience increments.
So how do you avoid either disenfranchising some of your Board members, or putting undue pressure on the Finance Committee to get everything exactly right? There are a couple of tried and true methods. One is to have the Finance Committee prepare a White Paper outlining various options with respect to tuition, staffing, projected enrolments, etc. and their projected impact on the bottom line. Rather than go into a Board meeting armed with a hard and fast recommendation (the bully approach), the Finance Chair needs to empower her or his colleagues to actively engage in the decision-making process. A second tactic is to invite a disinterested observer who is familiar with the school budgeting process to sit in on these Board deliberations and ask the key questions of both the Committee and the Board. Former Finance Chairs, retired Business Officers, or retired Heads can bring some of that outside expertise to the table.


Finally, the Chair and the Governance Committee also have to make sure that every finance discussion takes place in the context of the Vision and Strategic goals of the school. That ensures that the "how can we do more with less?" discussion, becomes instead a deliberation on "what will it cost to do the things that will provide the best possible educational experience for the students in our care, and how will we finance them?"
When everyone around the table is fully engaged in discussions of school finance and spending priorities, there is no-one left to bully - even by accident!




2 Comments

    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

    View my profile on LinkedIn
    21stC Podcast

    Archives

    March 2022
    April 2020
    July 2019
    March 2019
    September 2018
    July 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    April 2016
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    January 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly