Articles
Warning: this article bravely ploughs into territory where more timid consultants fear to tread – it discusses school principals and an authoritarian, despotic dictator within the one piece of writing.
As a Cold War Kid, the year 1989 was a heady time for me. I watched in fascination as two immutable alternate universes – East and West – seemed to converge. All my assumptions about the natural order of the world seemed to crumble as the Berlin Wall fell and Communist regimes across Eastern Europe collapsed like dominoes.
I didn’t know it at the time, but that period now provides some really important lessons for today’s school boards and leaders. Yes, really! Stay with me.
In 1987, two years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, I visited the USSR and then travelled extensively through much of Communist Eastern Europe with my then-young family. We experienced Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia under Communist rule, and if you are interested, you can read about it in the illustrated daily diary I wrote at the time. As a consequence of those travels, I could easily visualise the actual places where revolutions were overthrowing dictatorships in rapid succession.
By far the most bizarre Communist country I visited in Eastern Europe at that time was Romania. As soon as I drove across the border from Hungary, I realised we had entered a country with deep problems. I had to steer around an unusual combination of road hazards –huge potholes in the road as well as countless groups of children who would suddenly ran out in front of the car to beg for food.
A road sign in the town of 30 Decembrie (30 December), south of Bucharest, when I visited in 1987. The sign, typical of hundreds across Romania at the time, means “Our esteem and pride – Ceauşescu – Romania!”. The town was re-named 1 Decembrie in 1996, and the same road now looks like THIS.
I had entered a truly weird country marked by poverty mixed with intense fear engendered by the ruthless, hated President Nicolae Ceauşescu, his despised but powerful wife Elena, and their joint use of the colossal secret police force known as the Securitate. At the time of my visit in 1987, the BBC writer and presenter Jacques Rupnik wrote a book titled “The Other Europe” and said this about Ceauşescu’s Romania:
“Romanians always refer to ‘Him’; even in private they avoid mentioning his name. Just in case ‘They’ overhear. ‘They’ stand for the omnipresent and much feared Securitate, the secret police. Ceauşescu’s wife is called simply Elena. So with ‘Him’, ‘Them’ and ‘Elena’ you have all you need to know about contemporary Romanian politics.”
Perhaps not quite all, because Rupnik then writes a seven-page-long diatribe about contemporary Romanian politics beginning with the words “The Ceauşescu regime is without doubt the most repressive in the Soviet bloc today…” If you are interested, you can read more about the state of Romania under Ceauşescu in the references at the end of this article.
Nicolae and Elena Ceauşescu receiving bouquets of flowers from children who have been especially selected to adore the couple.
I am not for one moment suggesting that Nicolae Ceauşescu and his regime resembled any Principal or School I have ever known or worked with. It is in the causes and the process of Ceauşescu’s fall from power two years after my visit that lessons are found for today’s school leaders.
The Ceauşescus had been universally reviled in Romania for over a decade, but criticisms were only uttered in muted whispers among one’s closest and most trusted friends and family. However, as winter enveloped Romania in December 1989 and fraternal Communist regimes collapsed across Europe, something unprecedented happened in the provincial city of Timişoara, some 550 kilometres west of Romania’s capital, Bucharest.
On 16th December, a public protest began in response to the government’s attempt to evict and reassign a minor but well-loved church pastor, László Tőkés, to a remote rural parish for speaking out about state-restricted seminary enrolments. Public protests were unknown in Ceauşescu’s Romania, and the Securitate responded first with tear gas and water cannons, and then with machine gun fire. Events escalated, but of course nothing was reported in the state-controlled media. Nonetheless, most Romanians learned what was happening from clandestine broadcasts by the BBC and VOA and through the country’s highly effective verbal grapevine.
Strada Turda, a main road in downtown Bucharest – our lunch stop on 1st August 1987.
As events in Timişoara continued to escalate, Nicolae Ceauşescu decided to give one of his dreary, stage-managed speeches from the balcony of the Communist Party’s Central Committee building in downtown Bucharest. And so, on 21st December, about 100,000 people were bussed into the large square in front of the balcony and given pro-Ceauşescu banners and signs to demonstrate their loyalty for the cameras (and the Securitate) – the usual procedure that had occurred countless times in the past. The television cameras were there to beam the rally as a ‘live’ event.
But this speech turned out differently. After Ceauşescu’s first few sentences, murmuring began in the crowd that soon grew into a crescendo of shouts – “Timişoara”, “Timişoara”, “Timişoara”. The microphones picked up the voices. Ceauşescu looked confused and held up his arm to silence the crowd. You can see the video of Ceauşescu’s speech HERE.
Nicolae Ceaușescu, centre, with his wife Elena, delivering his final address to the masses on 21st December 1989 from the balcony of the Communist Party’s Central Committee building in central Bucharest.
That is when the live TV feed was cut, denying the television audience the scenes of chaos that ensued. Of course, the cut in transmission revealed much more than it hid. Suddenly, everyone understood what was happening, and across the country people ran out of their homes and into the streets – a spontaneous revolution was underway.
The Ceauşescus escaped the mayhem, but a few days later they were unceremoniously arrested and subjected to a show trial. Then, on Christmas Day 1989, Nicolae and Elena were shot and killed by a very zealous firing squad and close-up images of their bullet-ridden bodies were displayed on national television for all to see.
This is what the same place looked like on my recent visit. The white pyramid now serves as a memorial, pointing upwards to the balcony where Nicolae Ceaușescu delivered his final address on 21st December 1989. The pyramid is inscribed “Glorie martirilor nostril”, which means “Glory to our martyrs” as a memorial to the 49 people killed and 500 wounded there on that day.
Why was this sudden mass uprising possible in 1989 after being unthinkable for over a decade? This is where school leaders and boards have lessons to learn – and not because they (usually!) need to suppress a revolution I hasten to add. The key factor that enabled change to occur was a change in the nature of knowledge.
In a 2019 article the progression of knowledge from individual through shared to common knowledge is described. When Romanians were hiding their disdain for the Ceauşescus in private, it remained at the level of ‘individual knowledge’ and was thus largely passive and ineffective in any practical sense. When they were brave enough to whisper their disdain quietly to trusted others, it became “shared knowledge”, which spread information but remained below the threshold for effective change. However, when the crowd in Bucharest began chanting, the shared knowledge suddenly became “common knowledge” and therefore impossible to ignore. As Tim Harford states, “an information cascade had started a revolution; common knowledge was about to finish the job”. The reason was that “common knowledge” creates a distinctive cognitive state that empowers collective action.
(Left): “The Genius of the Carpathians” – one of Nicolae Ceaușescu’s many personality cult posters from his time as leader. (Right): Ceauşescu’s image appeared at the front of most books published in Romania during his period in power. This example was defaced after his fall from power by the owner of the book, a 1983 scientific manual issued by the Ministry of Education and Training. (Both images show exhibits I was able to photograph when I visited the Muzeul Amintirilor din Comunism – the Museum of Memories of Communism – in Braşov, Romania).
I believe there are four important lessons for school boards and leaders arising from the story of Ceauşescu’s downfall.
The first lesson relates to the progression of “shared knowledge” towards “common knowledge”. If discontent (whether justified or unjustified) is growing towards a Principal, then it is in everyone’s interests (including the Principal and the Board) if the Principal plans to retire or move to another school while this discontent remains at the level of “shared knowledge”. If action is delayed until the “shared knowledge” becomes “common knowledge”, then the situation can escalate suddenly and unpredictably, causing considerable reputational damage to both the school and the Principal’s reputation.
This leads to the second lesson. Some Principals are genuinely unaware that discontent is escalating either because they are aloof and out-of-touch with the school’s staff, parents and students, or because they have surrounded themselves with a servile, sycophantic executive team that never challenges the Principal. The obvious answers to such situations are for the Principal to consult widely, be transparent, listen to advice with true humility and receptivity, know the school community, and assemble a diverse executive team of articulate, professional critical thinkers.
This leads in turn to the third lesson from Romania’s experience. Discontent towards leaders (of schools as well as nations) is more likely to increase as their time in office becomes longer. One factor contributing to this discontent may be simple boredom or yearning for change (the “it’s time” factor), but more commonly it reflects the impact that the leader is having. A good general rule for any School Principal is to remain in office only as long as you are still making effective changes, which usually means no more than a decade. Although every school is different, a decade is about the typical time that “shared knowledge” discontent can shift dramatically towards “common knowledge” discontent.
The fourth lesson flows from this. The best way to protect long-term leaders from the dangers of isolation, complacency and inertia is to conduct regular performance reviews. For politicians, that means facing the voters on a regular basis (Ceauşescu take note!). For school principals, it means undertaking annual appraisals that lead to goal-setting for the coming year, combined with full 360-degree performance reviews during the period before contracts are renewed.
A thorough, planned, confidential, well-executed performance review by an independent, politically neutral professional will almost certainly identify the danger signals – declining performance, staff morale issues, lack of support from the board, difficulties in resolving conflicts, loss of passion, increasing isolation and/or stubbornness, persistent challenges, limited professional growth, declining communication skills, health issues, budgetary challenges, personal or family issues, legal or ethical concerns, burnout, community disconnection, vision misalignment – while they are still at the level of “shared knowledge” before they escalate more dangerously into “common knowledge”.
Everything that has just been said about school principals should also apply to board members.
If the quality of any board member’s “value-added” is declining, it is time to consider vacating the position and allowing a replacement to take the seat – someone who embraces the school’s mission and vision with passion, and who has the creativity and energy to make an active contribution.
One additional factor may apply to board members. According to many governance experts, board effectiveness is enhanced when term limits are applied to board members. This is a common factor for both political leaders (e.g. the US Presidency) and school boards, as I have written elsewhere.
Term limits for school board members can improve board effectiveness because:
There is no fixed ideal period for term limits that can be applied unquestioningly to every school. This is because every school is at a different stage of its institutional life, has different needs, has varying capacities to recruit new members, and has different approaches to conducting its own board self-reviews and appraisals.
The US author Dennis Miller makes these observations (which I support):
“It is best to stagger board terms so only a few board members leave each year. You do not want to lose more than one-third of your board at one time. I suggest that the term length be in the two-year to three-year range and that members serve a maximum number of three to four terms. This would ensure that no one board member serves more than 10 years on the board.”
We should recognise and reward the dedication and years of service for those who have served with distinction on the non-profit board. However, after serving on a board for 10 years, it is time to allow others to step up and take their rightful place as the next generation of board leaders ready and willing to serve.
I realise that all this may sound somewhat dismal because it has focussed on leadership that has bred discontent. There is a reason for that focus – the American consultant John Littleford recently wrote this about the sad state of Heads’ turnover in schools:
“Almost eighty percent of all heads of schools are fired. They do not leave of their own volition. Thirty years ago many heads served long terms of office and most left under their own steam. While the job today is more complicated and pressured, and while parents, boards, students, alumni, faculty and community are all more demanding than thirty years ago, there appear to be a number of specific factors which have led to the early termination of heads”
That statistic may surprise many people, but it does not surprise most school principals, not does it surprise the public relations personnel who draft statements to the school community announcing that the Head is leaving to spend more time with his (or her) family, to travel, for health reasons, to explore new opportunities, to seek new challenges, and so on.
Of course, there is also the other 20 percent of Heads who make a move because of the “pull factors” of a new school rather than the “push factors” of the existing one. When I read the statistics, I feel very fortunate that I fell into this group when I served as Principal of five different schools over 25 years. Of my five headships, I only initiated an application for the first – the remaining four were all initiated by search companies or school boards that knew of me by reputation, sought me out, made an approach and after a preliminary conversation, strongly encouraged me to apply.
My reasons for “knowing it was time to go” were therefore completely different from the factors described above. Yes, I had my share of cantankerous and self-serving board members, plus a few overly ambitious, less-than-ethical executive staff who were more than willing to spread untruths in the hope of furthering their own career aspirations or avoid being pushed beyond the comfort zone they had erected around themselves in their role. However, none of these was a factor in my wanting to move from any school where I served as Head. (As a parent in one of the schools where I was Principal said to me, “we love the fact that you are not a quitter”).
The ceremony farewelling me from Li Po Chun United World College in Hong Kong (China) to take up the headship of The Awty International School in Houston, Texas (USA) in 2011. This was the first event to be held in the new auditorium which was the largest building project undertaken during my headship in Hong Kong.
For me (as a change leader), the usual reason that I thought it was time to move was feeling I had faithfully and honourably achieved the most important reforms required in the school where I was serving, and I could now contribute more to the world of education in a new school with different needs. New challenges have always excited me, with the more difficult-to-achieve challenges always seeming to offer the greatest satisfaction.
I loved being the leader of every school where I was Principal. I never regretted leaving when I did as I invariably felt the time was right to move on to new challenges where my skills could be of even greater use in the service of others.
POSTSCRIPT:
I recently re-visited Romania for the first time since 1987. Today, it is a beautiful, prosperous, confident member of the European Union, functioning effectively under effective “rule of law”. It is completely transformed from the dismal, quirky place I encountered in 1987. This is encouraging as it shows how a country (like a school) can recover and thrive from a period of turmoil.
Strada Turda in downtown Bucharest today (the same place shown in the 1987 tram photo above).
The only reminders of Ceauşescu today are some museums and the “House of the Republic”, a huge extravagant ‘palace’ that was built on his orders and now dominates downtown Bucharest. Second only to The Pentagon in Washington DC as the world’s largest building, the Guinness Book of World Records claims the House of the Republic is the world’s most expensive building and the world’s heaviest building.
It serves as a sullen warning of the dangerous excesses that suppression of “common knowledge can bring. Sadly, I think it can also serve as a warning to the boards of schools with long-standing Principals who are approaching retirement and may seem intent on leaving a highly visible legacy of their leadership – perhaps a sports complex, a pool, or a classroom block with their name inscribed on the front – in what is sometimes facetiously termed having an “edifice complex”.
The House of the Republic, now re-named the Palace of Parliament, was constructed under Ceauşescu’s orders from 1984 to 1997. At 240 metres long, 270 metres wide, and with 12 stories, it is now the world’s second largest building.
The inspiration
This article was originally inspired by an episode of the consistently excellent podcast “Cautionary Tales” by Tim Harford: ‘The Rise and Fall of a Megalomaniac’, 12 Apr 2024.
References and further reading
Almond M (1991) The Rise and Fall of Nicolae and Elena Ceauşescu. Orion.
Behr E (1991) Kiss the Hand You Cannot Bite: The Rise and Fall of the Ceauşescus. Villard Books.
Pacepa IM (1990) Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescus' Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption. Regenery Publishing.
Rupnik, J (1988) The Other Europe. Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Sweeney J (1991) The Life and Evil Times of Nicolae Ceauşescu. Hutchinson.
Web-based references and further reading
Alpha History (2023) Romania Under Ceauşescu article.
Ceauşescu, the madness of power video.
Ceauşescu’s last speech video (extracts, with commentary).
Ceauşescu’s last speech video (in full, without commentary, part 1).
Ceauşescu’s last speech video (in full, without commentary, part 2).
Christmas in Bucharest video.
Codrington S (1987) Europe 1987 Travel Diary index page.
Codrington S (2022) Romania and Bulgaria Travel Diary 2022 index page.
DeConici D, et.al. (1989) Revolt Against Silence: The state of human rights in Romania, US Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe article.
De Freitas J, Thomas K, DeScioli P & Pinker S (2019) “Common knowledge, coordination, and strategic mentalizing in human social life”. PNAS 116(28): 13751-13758 article.
Elliott M (1990) László Tőkés, Timişoara and the Romanian Revolution. George Fox University Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe. 19(5) article.
James A (2014) Death of the Dictator: the Romanian Revolution of 1989 article.
Keresztes PK (1985) When Romania turned Bibles into toilet paper, Wall Street Journal 14/6/1985 article.
Littleford J (2024) Leadership Of Schools And The Longevity Of Heads article.
Miller DC (2020) How Long Is Too Long to Serve on the Board? article.
Wikipedia on Communist Romania article.
Wikipedia on Elena Ceauşescu article.
Wikipedia on Nicolae Ceauşescu article.
Wikipedia on the 1989 Romanian Revolution article.
We offer support for school leaders and board members in many areas, including conducting independent, confidential, politically neutral appraisals and performance reviews of Principals and school boards.
Further information on these and many other facets of best practice in school leadership and governance is provided in the book “Optimal School Governance", which can be ordered directly through Pronins.
You may also be interested in previous articles which are archived at https://optimalschool.com/articles.html. You can subscribe to receive future articles by e-mail using the red button below.