Articles
It can happen stealthily, suddenly, or relentlessly. Whichever way it comes about, it’s always destructive to a school community. In some cases, it’s fatal for the school. I’m referring to board dysfunction.
It can just take a spark to light the fire. A popular teacher is dismissed. A student has been maimed in a school fight. A large donor exerts undue influence. A board member starts giving direct instructions to teachers. Allegations of historical abuse emerge. A newspaper reporter or a blogger with an axe to grind starts a public campaign. Two board members have a violent disagreement away from the school at their common workplace or church. Parents think a board member may be benefitting financially from a board decision. The list of possibilities is very long.
In response to the emerging crisis, board solidarity fractures, confidentiality shatters, resolve weakens, and the board’s failing reputation becomes a widely known issue, exacerbating the problem. The school’s reputation is damaged, enrolments decline, staff morale plummets, academic results fall, and the board becomes paralysed by overly frequent but ineffective meetings to deal with the backlog of crises.
I’m speaking here in generalisations, but everything I’ve listed (and much, much more) has happened with school boards I have been brought in to assist.
When a school board becomes dysfunctional, life invariably becomes very difficult (and busy!) both for the Head of School and the members of the board. It is said that in these situations, board members (and the Head) essentially have three options. These options are “Exit, Voice and Loyalty”, which is also the title of a classic 1970 book by the German-American economist and political scientist, Albert Hirschman.
Hirschman’s thesis is that members of any organisation – whether a business, a political party, a nation or a school board – essentially have two possible primary responses when they perceive that the organisation is encountering a decline. They can either exit (withdraw from the relationship), or, they can voice (attempt to repair or improve the relationship through communication of the complaint, concern, grievance or proposal for change). Hirschman then argues that the individual’s level of loyalty will affect the decision whether to exit or to voice – high loyalty reduces the likelihood of exit while increasing the likelihood of voice.
When faced with board dysfunction, board members and the Head of School can leave (exit) or speak up for change (voice). Hirschman also explores a third option, which is loyalty (conform and carry on). Whichever choice is made carries its own risks and potential benefits, both for the individual and for the organisation, making it crucial to assess the situation carefully before deciding on the best course of action.
Let’s explore the merits of each of the three options.
One option in a board crisis is for the Head of School to resign and seek employment elsewhere and/or for board members to step down. This is the “exit” option, which as the diagram above shows is active but destructive. Nonetheless, if the dysfunction of the school board is so significant that it is impacting the school’s ability to function effectively, leaving may be the most realistic decision. In cases where board decisions or inaction hinder student learning, create an unhealthy work environment, or place the senior leaders in a position where they are unable to fulfil their professional responsibilities, the “exit” option may protect both their career and personal wellbeing. On the other hand, this option also means deserting the school community, abandoning the students and staff who may be negatively affected by the board’s ongoing dysfunction.
The second option is “voice” in which board members and/or the Head of School speak up and push for change – an action that is both active and constructive. This approach demonstrates strong leadership and a commitment to the school’s mission. By being a strong advocate for better governance, transparency, and improved decision-making, a board member or Head of School has the potential to influence positive reforms. On the other hand, this option carries significant risks, especially during a crisis or if there is a majority view on the board that is resistant to feedback or more comfortable with inertia than reform. In such situations, the Head of School or the vocal board member may face retaliation, strained relationships, or even job loss. Despite the challenges, however, speaking up is often the most ethical choice, as it places a priority on the needs of the students, teachers, the wider school community, and perhaps even the school’s future viability.
The third option is also constructive but it is passive when compared with “voice”. This option is “loyalty” where the Head of School and/or board members simply conform and continue working within the constraints of the dysfunctional board. Some Heads of School may choose this path to maintain job security, avoid conflict, or attempt to achieve small improvements from within the system. Although this approach may provide some level of stability and avoid conflict, it can also lead to frustration, compromised professional integrity, and a failure to address the underlying or systemic problems. Over time, remaining passive in the face of dysfunction may contribute to the school’s decline and negatively affect students and staff.
Although Hirschman focussed on the three options of “exit”, “voice” and “loyalty”, board members and Heads of School realistically have three additional options available to them if the board becomes dysfunctional – “neglect”, “sabotage” and seeking “expert help”.
Although I have witnessed “neglect” and “sabotage” in some schools as responses to board dysfunction, neither approach can be recommended as both are inherently destructive – indeed, even more destructive than “exit”.
The option of “expert help” is worth considering as an effective, active, constructive response to board dysfunction. This solution overcomes the emotions, the political biases and the factionalism that often accompany board dysfunction. The “expert help” option can be highly effective in cases where internal efforts to resolve the issues have failed or where there is a need for an unbiased perspective to guide the process of improvement.
Bringing in an independent expert – such as a mediator, consultant, or facilitator – can help provide a neutral, objective viewpoint on the root causes of the dysfunction. Independent, external experts can assist in identifying communication breakdowns, governance challenges, structural or constitutional problems, and conflicts that may not be immediately apparent to those inside the organisation who “can’t see the forest for the trees”. They can also facilitate structured discussions or training sessions to help board members improve collaboration, set clear goals, and strengthen their decision-making processes. The “expert help” option can be particularly helpful in situations where the Head of School and/or board members lack the skills or experience to resolve the dysfunction on their own.
Although this option requires resources and the willingness of the school board to accept external help, it can offer a more constructive solution than mere “exiting” or “voicing”. In cases where the school board is open to change but lacks the skills or tools to make it happen, an outside expert can act as a catalyst for positive transformation. However, it is important for both the Head of School and the Board Chair to assess whether or not the board is truly willing to engage in a process of reform; if not, the external intervention may be ineffective or might face resistance.
In conclusion, while leaving, speaking up, or conforming may be the initial, instinctive responses for board members of Heads of School when faced with a dysfunctional school board, they are really only partial solutions at best. Seeking external expertise should be considered as an effective option that can calm the waters, relieve the pressures, build an effective long-term solution to the dysfunction, and establish a firm foundation for the school and its entire community to flourish for many years into the future.
- Dr Stephen Codrington
We offer support for school leaders and board members in many areas, including crisis resolution, mentoring, and board performance reviews.
Further information on this and many other facets of best practice in school leadership and governance is provided in the books “Optimal School Governance", and “Insights into School Leadership and Board 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.
