Troublesome Scenarios

An increasing number of school board chairs who wish, or think the full board wishes, to replace a sitting head have contacted Littleford & Associates for advice on whether or how to proceed.   Usually what is driving this possible removal of the head is familiarity with another existing or potential head whom one or more board members believe has the charisma or skill set that they believe is lacking in the current head.

In these cases, the sitting head apparently has no knowledge of these conversations but given the typical leaks within a board (especially a board of all current parents), it is hard to believe that these heads do not know that something is amiss. However, clearly some do not know that their tenure is in jeopardy because many parents, students and often faculty and staff openly support them.

A board’s desire for more information, whether appropriate or overly intrusive, may prompt a head to react defensively. Miscommunication or a lack of communication may cause board members(s) to question the current head’s staying power. More often, the chair and head do not have a strong partnership, and the chair is under pressure to take steps to remove the head even though there may have been no genuine heart to heart talks between the head and chair.  The chair’s role is to be the head’s biggest public advocate and most honest private critic.

What typically sparks the initiative to replace the head in these scenarios is an unexpected opportunity when the head is vulnerable: the name of someone in the market nearby or maybe known through the school network, or perhaps a senior administrator who is seeking a headship and whose charismatic personality and leadership skills are attracting outside attention. Thus, some sidebar, confidential conversations begin to take place sometimes without the knowledge of the chair.  When the most influential board members are taking this initiative, the situation becomes more delicate and difficult to manage.

What is a Board Chair to Do?

A chair who contacts our Firm when he or she gets wind of these talks, may or may not agree with their intent, and may even share some of the board members’ criticisms of the head. These chairs recognize that they may be moving too fast and might start a crisis by a sudden dismissal of the head and replacing the head by someone waiting in the wings. The chair may be concerned not only about an outpouring of support for the sitting head but about a rocky transition for the new head.

Heads and boards need to know that while this scenario is not common, it is occurring more often. When this Consultant challenged some of these off-site confidential conversations, one client school Board Member told me that “in the business world, we always have to have our eye on a potential successor to the current CEO.” That is true but given the politics of schools with emotions centered around children and their needs, the corporate model is one to follow carefully. See below.

In one case, the Board voted to remove the Head and moved immediately to make an offer to a Prospect who said he had other options but if the Board moved quickly, he would accept their offer. The unsuspecting Head was fired, and the Board extended an offer to the candidate “in the wings.” The total impact remains to be seen.

In another case, the Board Chair tried to keep the train from leaving the station by seeking a compromise. She acknowledged the Head’s challenges and his strong community support. She suggested that the Board retain the sitting Head but hire a second in command whose strengths would offset his weaknesses.  The hope is that this partnership will strengthen the School and provide a potential head succession plan down the road.

Another Board offered a new contract to the Head, but influential Board Members began having conversations with a local talented Senior Administrator who unexpectedly became available. That person landed a very attractive headship elsewhere, but the sitting Head, feeling upset and blindsided, may be exploring other opportunities.

This topic deserves our attention because it reflects key governance needs:

1. Put in place effective and fair evaluation protocols, including documented annual performance conversations.
2. Support and nurture the head, including having regular frank and perhaps tough conversations.
3. Require board members to sign an annual confidentiality statement. NAIS and Littleford & Associates have samples of this.
4. Ensure that every board member has a clear and healthy understanding of appropriate search protocols.
5. Honor channels and boundaries by not engaging in inappropriate conversations with stakeholders and others that clearly violate the “guardrails” inherent in good governance guidelines.
6. Take the moral high road despite periodic powerful pressures to move quickly when appropriate due process and healthy conversations have not occurred.

What is a Head of School to Do?

To minimize the risk of the scenarios above unfolding, heads of school should heed this advice:

1. Feedback to the board chair and the full board should contain no surprises. It should be candid and balanced, i.e., a mix of good news and challenges/issues needing immediate and longer-term attention. When boards consistently hear only positive developments, they become skeptical and in the worst case, suspicious. Do not give board members, especially those with time on their hands, a reason to go digging for more information using inappropriate channels.
2. Pay attention to succession planning by developing the talents of your senior leadership team. Demonstrate to your board that you are doing this key part of your job. If one or more of your team members are consistently underperforming, look outside and document the reasons for your decision.
3. Remember that your most successful senior leaders may go on to head other schools. This is a testament to your strength as a head of school. This is how our independent and international schools thrive.
4. Be open to constructive criticism and strive to improve.

Having a “shadow docket” protocol (a quick and not always well thought out judgment) in the area of head succession can jeopardize community good will, enrollment and financial health and potentially create a fractured board.