Boards and Leadership Change

Head of school transitions happen for a variety of reasons. Without a doubt, however, the most stressful ones are those that are not voluntary. In the last few years, an increasing number of boards have decided to let their heads go at nontraditional transition times. In turn, this has left the school leadership staff scrambling to ensure that the school community remains confident in the school for the remainder of the year or longer.

The following are some of the main reasons these relationships have ended badly, as well as suggestions on how to avoid these situations. While there are instances in which it is clearly in the school’s best interest to fire a head, schools can often avoid these abrupt and disruptive transitions by strengthening the working relationship between the board and the head. Finally, boards that make the decision to go separate ways with a head need to be aware of the potential pitfalls that often appear afterward.

Often a poor evaluation system and poor communication between the board and head go hand in hand. For a start, it is imperative that a true evaluation system exists for the head of school. Many boards operate under the assumption that because the CEO position in the business sector is more or less self-regulating, the same should be the case in schools. To some degree, this is true, but the board and the head need some kind of system by which, on the one hand, the board knows the head is doing his or her job and, on the other, the head knows what the board expects. Perhaps more to the point, the typical head’s contract calls for it.

In addition to an evaluation based on measureable goals and objectives is the all-important matter of communication. Boards and heads need to ensure that the feedback - in both directions - is clearly communicated and documented. When either side is being too reticent or overly positive in its feedback, the recipient does not necessarily get the message; they can, in fact, assume that all is well. In some cases, a board does not listen carefully to a head providing honest feedback about issues that need board attention. In others, a head does not fully comprehend the urgency of the board’s message so that he or she can take steps to ameliorate the concerns. The bottom line: A lack of clear communication often plays a pivotal role in a board’s decision to part ways with a head or a head’s decision to leave a school prematurely.

Beyond the unnecessary emotional trauma it can cause, a lack of clear documentation can also muddy the legal waters when it is time to part. Boards and heads who feel their evaluation systems and documentation are lacking should reach out to the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) and other school associations or individual schools to gather examples of systems with proven track records. Working with the school’s employment attorney, the school can then develop an appropriate system.

It sounds elementary, but a well-constructed evaluation system and clear communication is the single best way to avoid the untimely departure of heads and all the collateral damage such a departure can do to a school community.

This issue of poor succession planning comes into play in many situations, but most often for heads who are newer to their schools. Most schools structure search committees so that the vice chair (or other recognized board chair heir apparent) leads the search committee. The incoming head and this soon-to-be-chair start out fresh together and often develop a positive working relationship. However, when this chair rotates off the board, the relationship between the new chair and the head can have a rocky start - which, of course, has implications for the health of the school. Well-functioning boards commit to training the incoming chair by having him or her shadow the outgoing chair, set up similar schedules and support, and allow the incoming chair to truly bond with the head.

The board and the head must also work to ensure a good personality match between these two important positions. That board chair is the board’s conduit with the head of school, and he or she must get along well with the head in good times and bad. Any sense of personality strain before the new board chair begins is likely to be exacerbated once the pressures of the position are brought to bear. If necessary, it is better to break the chain of succession than to subject the new board chair, head, and school community to a strained relationship.

While major donors can be a blessing for your board, they can also carry dysfunctional weight. Major donors sometimes believe they deserve special treatment from the head or the administrative team, or feel that their donations entitle them to more disclosure in the school’s advancement work. If such a donor ends up on the board, his or her presence will be a trial for the head of school.

The best donors are those who understand and respect the boundaries of good governance and giving principles. Schools that are thinking about bringing major donors onto the school board should consider the individuals’ backgrounds as much as they would any other board member. Does the person have experience serving on a nonprofit board? Does he or she understand that being a board member requires the utmost respect for the boundaries between the individual and the school, perhaps more so than between a regular donor and the school’s leadership team?

Once a major donor is on the board, the head of school must be able to depend on the board leadership to educate that new member, maintain boundaries, and head off any issues at the pass.

Heads and boards become dissatisfied with each other for any number of reasons. What matters, however, is that they get to the root of the problem and then actively work to address it as soon as possible. This is fundamental to the health of all institutions. As longtime heads retire and less experienced heads take their places, boards and heads need to ensure that both sides are properly trained and supported in their roles. They also need a process for dealing with challenges as they arise.

Specifically, if the board perceives that the head is having issues melding with the school culture or with managing the staff, it could hire an executive coach for the head or offer leadership training. If the head perceives that the board leadership is not working closely enough with him or her and the administrative team, then the board and head should commit to a retreat, professionally led leadership exercises, or some other opportunity to connect and strengthen relationships.

One side cannot let the other flounder for lack of experience or effort. In much the same way that boards sometimes assume that the head of school has an inherent sense of how to perform on the job, there can also be an assumption that tension between administrative leadership and the board should be able to fix itself. This is largely not the case, nor does it have to be, given the wide array of resources available in the broader independent school community.

Leading a school requires work and commitment. Both the head and board need to stay abreast of the school’s challenges, opportunities, and short- and long-term operating plans. Neither side can carry this leadership weight alone; both require that the other be fully engaged in both the vision and business of running the school. If a board feels that the head is not fully engaged - say, in fund-raising or in attending on-campus events - then it will lose faith in the head’s leadership. If the head of school thinks that board members are not truly participating in governance - coming unprepared to board meetings, not being present at school functions, not participating in fund-raising, etc. - then the head feels that he or she is going it alone.

The board leadership, often through its governance committee, should be on the lookout for board members who are not fully engaged. These members often have not done the background reading, frequently miss board and committee meetings, and rarely engage when emails and other communications are sent to the group. Whether these individuals do not have sufficient time to serve on the board or do not have sufficient interest, they are nevertheless putting undue pressure on the rest of the board and thus must either improve their engagement or leave the board.

The school leadership also has an obligation to engage the board in meaningful work. All board meetings should focus on generative and strategic conversations in which the board members are actively engaged in the issue at hand. They need to be given the data, background information, and perspective to enter into debate and consideration of the important issues the school faces. And board and committee meetings should focus on solving the big issues, not on a recitation of reports and data. The latter are only useful if they help address the former.

Often, it’s a subset of board members that pushes the question of firing a head. In these scenarios, the board has no choice but to engage in very difficult conversations. One side effect of these confrontations is that the head may still leave as a result of the board discourse alone, even if the board ultimately resolves to keep the head in place. Often the confrontations and the related rehashing of a head’s faults and strengths are excruciating to the head, his or her family, and the school community.

To avoid these “clash of the titans” moments, boards need to talk openly about challenges or concerns they have about the head during normal evaluation cycles, regular meetings, or executive ­sessions of board meetings. Any decision about the head’s future should not be made among a discrete set of board members (often the executive committee or the head’s evaluation committee). The board must operate under a protocol of “no surprises,” both for the entire board and the head of school.

For any number of reasons, there are times when the school, board, and head are all better off for a transition that is not timed for the summer break in the academic calendar. These are often extreme examples in which the board or head feels that the relationships, either between the leadership of the board and the head or between the head and the school community, are so dysfunctional that carrying the relationship forward through the rest of the academic year will have long-term ramifications for the school. Boards, however, need to be aware of a few key elements in letting a head of school go.

The head of school search calendar is somewhat limited. Many schools do their searches 18 months away from the start date for the new head of school. In other words, for a head of school who will start on July 1, 2016, the search will have begun in the fall of 2014. Some schools have a shorter timetable, but often searches are done a year or more in advance of the start date. This may cause the salary severance for the outgoing head of school to be for a year or more of salary, depending on the circumstances and terms of the agreement.

Board members are often from the business sector, where there is a fairly steady and predictable flow of employee attrition. Employees may be let go at any time during the fiscal year. While occasionally unpleasant, this timing does not necessarily indicate a particular issue. In the school world, however, the timing of an employee’s departure speaks volumes. This is particularly true of the head of school. A departure during the school year or at the very beginning of the school year may be perceived as caused by a severe lapse in judgment or capability that may impact the individual’s ability to secure another position. Sometimes such a termination is necessary, but boards should weigh the potential long-term impact and consider if there are interim solutions that may allow the head to finish the school year.

Boards are often surprised by the impact that a head of school transition can have on a board. This is particularly true if several board members have taken it upon themselves to try to counsel the head to leave or attempt to get the entire board to sign off on their recommendation of a head termination without proper transparency. Some board members may feel betrayed by the members who pushed for dismissal through back channels. Those who defended the head prior to his or her dismissal may feel as if they had failed the outgoing head and struggle to move forward. Also, board members will find themselves faced with many challenging questions from the community, including parents, staff, and students. Whether a head is ultimately dismissed or not, the board must be able to speak with one voice, even if several members may not feel the decision was appropriate. Boards need to talk through these issues and not leave them to fester. Any unaddressed rift in the board will manifest itself in the school community.

The departure of a head can have a profound impact on the school community. Boards should be ready for reactions from students, parents, staff, alumni, and major donors. Departures that are not handled well can result in a lack of confidence in the school’s overall leadership and lead to a drop in admissions, enrollment, staffing, and giving. For the board, the best response at this point is to listen to the criticism - and to always keep the needs of the students at the center of the conversation.

Often, board leaders cannot help but feel overwhelmed with all that goes into plotting the course for a school. However, the relationship between the head and board is fundamental to the success of that planning. Evaluation, succession planning, appropriate boundaries, support, and mutual awareness for the other’s commitment to and good work on behalf of the school are essential to the success of the overall enterprise. School and board leaders who closely track these issues and openly address concerns or ambiguities will help their schools stay the course for a long time to come.