In my experience as a teacher, head of school, board member, and school association director — the latter including responsibility for coordinating an accreditation program — I have seen a remarkable similarity in the dysfunctional patterns behind many common leadership problems. This motif occurs in schools that are new or old, large or small, nonprofit or for-profit, religious or secular. The same elements arise in other kinds of organizations as well. This chronic malady arises from a lack of knowledge about something I call the Natural Law of Organizational Alignment.
Many organizations have a tendency toward misalignment of authority, responsibility, and accountability that causes poor decision-making. There are natural consequences that result, similar to touching fire and getting burned. When those key elements are not properly aligned, the organization can experience grave difficulties that may even threaten its mission and stability. Many factors usually help avert the worst outcomes, but institutions with an alignment problem constantly court failure.
An organization with proper alignment among these three principles assigns authority for decision-making in a way that includes anyone with responsibility for implementing that decision. Some people may have only an advisory role, but they share authority to some extent.
Similarly, the accountability provisions in an organization should also reflect a strong connection with the assignment of authority and responsibility. Anyone with accountability for producing a certain outcome, for example, should participate in making key decisions in that area. Their job responsibilities should also give them the means to help bring about the desired results. Otherwise, they may be held accountable for outcomes that lie beyond their control.
Independent schools have many areas in which proper alignment is the norm. For instance, the decision to adopt a new math curriculum will usually include the teachers who use it and have primary responsibility for student learning. The teachers’ primary accountability for student progress makes their buy-in essential for positive results, and administrators know that. Similarly, the selection of a new development director will usually include the people who will supervise, support, and collaborate with that person. This sharing of authority does not mean everyone has equal influence over the final decision, but at least the key people have a voice in the process.
The natural consequences of misalignment can include poor decisions, people working at cross-purposes, unaddressed conflicts of interest, weak relational trust, change resistance, and competition where cooperation is needed. If poor alignment continues for any length of time, the organization’s effectiveness and reputation may become compromised. Financial instability can also result, unless the organization has no competition, plenty of reserve funds, or some larger affiliation (perhaps with a church or foundation) that insulates it from natural consequences.
Independent schools abound with stories of misalignment. In one case, for example, a capital campaign chair, who was also a trustee and lead donor, dictated the selection of a development consultant that he liked. The board affirmed that decision without involving the head of school or development director. Never mind that the head and development director still had primary responsibility and accountability for the campaign’s success. The campaign then floundered because the leadership team lacked the capacity to work together, and the head was not fully engaged.
Sometimes when a school appoints a new head, that person has little opportunity to participate in hiring key administrative staff or faculty. Failure to include the new head in these decisions represents a missed opportunity to start building good work relationships that will support the new leadership and reflect whatever new direction is emerging. More important, the person who is ultimately responsible and accountable for the effectiveness of those new employees has no role in making the hiring decisions. In this case, the locus of authority is out of alignment with the assignment of responsibility and accountability.
Another good example is the misguided, and fortunately rare, practice of having a board-level education committee. Such committees blur the lines between strategic leadership (at the board level) and operational leadership (at the administrative level). They are not consistent with governance best practices, including the accreditation standard that requires the head, not the board, to oversee the educational program.
Trustees may argue that their education committee merely supports the head in an advisory capacity. However, their position of authority as the head’s employer makes it difficult for the head to set appropriate parameters for the committee’s work or reject an ill-conceived proposal. A board-level education committee gives authority to trustees in an area where they have no direct responsibility or accountability. Misalignment of this kind always leads to trouble.
Schools seem especially vulnerable to misalignment when navigating a leadership transition. Decisions made during the ambiguous time between headships often receive less thoughtful attention to best practices than at other times. I know of two cases, for example, where a board chair in his final year exerted too much influence over leadership decisions for which he would have no responsibility or accountability.
In one case, the chair pressured the board to select his preferred candidate among two head finalists. They did so, but the new head of school had to work with a different board chair and their styles never matched. The crucial partnership between head and board chair never worked, and the head was forced to resign a year later.
In another situation, the outgoing board chair advocated for some administrative changes that would take effect in the first year of a new headship. Those changes included creating a special fundraising position for the previous head of school, who had become a good friend of the board chair. The trustees wasted a lot of time on that proposal because of loyalty and habitual deference to a lame duck board chair who should not have participated in making that decision.
In both of the precedin
g examples, the board chair should have taken a neutral role or stepped aside to empower leadership from the trustees who would have responsibility and accountability for supporting the new head of school. Proper alignment would have helped the trustees make sound decisions to support leadership stability.
I hope these observations help illustrate the predictable nature of some dysfunctional patterns that often appear in schools and other organizations. Many boards could have avoided mistakes by giving more attention to the principle of alignment that I have proposed. As an exercise in board development, I encourage trustees to read this article and evaluate key decisions in their board history using the principles offered here. In most cases, good decisions result from having proper alignment of authority, responsibility, and accountability.