Empower the Principal

One of the most important responsibilities of a school board (or school owner) is selecting an outstanding Principal (Head of School).  However, as some boards fail to appreciate, their responsibility to guide effective leadership in the school does not end with the Principal’s appointment. 

Once the right leader has been chosen and appointed, the board’s next duty is to empower that person to lead effectively.  No school can flourish when its Principal carries responsibility without corresponding authority.  Leadership that exists in title only is not leadership at all; it is symbolism, and symbolic leadership inevitably weakens an institution.  Schools need effective leaders, not figureheads.

Many boards say they want a “strong Principal” during the recruitment process.  In practice, however, what board members often have in mind is someone who co-ordinates the daily operations of the school while the real decisions remain elsewhere, often with the board itself.  Getting involved with operational matters is dangerous territory for the board because the role of the board role is governance, not operations.

In such cases (which I see all too often in my work with schools), a new Principal is appointed, and yet significant operational matters like staffing, enrolment, disciplinary and curriculum decisions still require the board’s approval.  In some schools, the Principal becomes so overloaded with menial tasks, such as serving as a minutes secretary at board and committee meetings, that the real work of leading the school becomes impossible.

A common problem arises in some schools as a Principal’s authority is eroded when complaints from parents can be taken directly to the school’s owners or board members.  In such schools, decisions by the Principal may be overturned on appeal, policies are quietly ignored, consequences are softened, and carefully considered decisions are reversed behind closed doors.  This can be especially dangerous if the parent with a complaint is known to be a generous donor to the school, or even worse, the parent is also a board member.

Naturally, the school community notices very quickly when something like this is amiss.  The spectre of a corrupt or totally dysfunctional school environment rises sharply as teachers, students and parents quickly learn where real authority resides, and they begin to react accordingly.  In such situations, the Principal may hold the position, occupy the office and retain the title, but the real authority resides elsewhere.  It is a recipe for a downward spiral for the school as its culture and structural integrity disintegrate.

And it is easy to see how the deterioration can escalate.  The first parent who successfully circumvents the Principal resets the school’s power hierarchy.  Such re-sets are seldom secretive; they become widely known through the school’s communication grapevine.  Once that precedent has been established, every rule becomes negotiable, every decision becomes subject to appeal, and every standard becomes open to challenge. The Principal’s authority is no longer assumed to be supreme.  Every decision made by the Principal must be defended publicly, sometimes repeatedly.

Ironically, many board members who undermine the Principal’s authority believe they are acting in the best interests of the school, claiming openness and transparency as justifications.  If businesses were conducted in the same manner as these boards were conducting their schools, they would likely be bankrupt within a month.  As the well-known educationalist Sir Ken Robinson once remarked, “Education is a human process, not an industrial one.  Teaching is an art form, and it’s the people, the teachers and the moments, that truly make learning come alive.  We’ve lost sight of the artistry and humanity at the heart of education.  It’s time to bring it back”.  He could have paraphrased his remarks succinctly by saying “school boards should support the work of the professional educators they have appointed, not undermine or interfere with them”.

I have never met a board member who believes he or she is acting maliciously towards their school.  On the contrary, I have found board members I work with to be universally well-meaning and usually passionate (if often time-poor) advocates of the school they help to govern.  However, in the absence of professional training in the duties of being a school board member, many members mistakenly convince themselves that intervening in decisions made by the Principal will build community goodwill, protect enrolment numbers, help staff to feel supported, or something similar.

The reality is that undermining their Principal’s authority actively works against the ideals they are trying to achieve.  It may provide some short-term comfort by avoiding difficult conversations by papering over disagreements, but it risks something far more precious: the school’s direction, integrity and reputation – and far-too-frequently, the longevity of the Principal’s tenure.

Discerning families never seek a school for their children which will zig-zag by shifting its standards and direction to satisfy every complaint.  They invariably search for a school that demonstrates consistency, fairness and stability, maintaining its articulated identity, philosophy and values in the long-term.  Parents expect to be able to relax in the secure knowledge that policies and procedures will be applied fairly and equally, even when doing so is uncomfortable, and that the school they choose for their children will adhere to the same standards throughout their children’s time there.

It is easy to understand how a board can unwittingly erode these expectations.  When a Principal’s decisions are repeatedly overridden, the consequences flow throughout the organisation.  Teachers become reluctant to enforce boundaries because they fear their decisions will not be supported.  Parents lose confidence in published policies because they discover exceptions can always be negotiated.  Principals in such environments gradually stop demonstrating leadership and innovation because they learn that the delegated authority given by the board can be withdrawn at any moment.

The consequences continue.  Student discipline, effort and performance deteriorate.  Staff morale declines and teacher retention rates plummet.  Parents lose respect for the school’s policies and standards, and enrolment numbers haemorrhage.  

Ironically, it is usually the Principal who is blamed by the board for these declining trends, clear evidence that many school boards are much more proficient in pointing an accusatory finger of blame than holding up a mirror to reflect upon and examine their own actions.

I have seen some school boards withhold giving their Principals the full authority of the CEO role on the grounds that unrestrained authority might one day be misused.  The suspicion underpinning this attitude is almost always short-sighted for two reasons.  First, it invites board members to step outside their role of governance and interfere in daily operations – usually operations for which they have little or no training or experience.  Second, the appropriate safeguard against the risk of poor management by the Principal is not constant interference but effective governance.  Boards and Principals ought to be working coherent partnership, each with clearly defined and separated roles and responsibilities to achieve common objectives.  Boards define the mission and establish vision, appoint capable leaders, monitor performance, and hold those leaders accountable.  Boards should never manage the school’s day-to-day operations.

In summary, owners and boards govern the school.  They define identity, purpose, values and strategic direction.  Boards focus on the school’s future.  In contrast, Principals manage the school.  They do this by implementing the board’s vision and priorities on a day-to-day basis through leading the school, developing policies and procedures, upholding standards and making operational decisions.

In other words, Principals perform the duties of a CEO under the full delegated authority of the board, and in return, they are accountable to the board for performing their duties.  In turn, under the delegated authority of the Principal, teachers bring the policies, procedures and organisational decisions to life in classrooms and across the campus.  If ever the roles of governance and management become blurred, the school’s culture begins to erode, even if enrolment numbers or examination results temporarily give the appearance that everything is functioning well.

Schools’ reputations are never built upon how many parents are satisfied in the moment.  Squeaky wheels always demand the most oil, but oiling those squeaky wheels often means ignoring other important needs or upsetting the overall balance of the institution.  Positive school reputations are built in large part by the long-term consistency with which the institution’s clearly articulated values and priorities are upheld in the face of pressure.

My advice to boards is to recruit their Principals carefully, ensuring a coherent alignment in values and priorities.  The board should set its expectations for the Principal clearly in writing.  The board must support its Principal publicly, especially when difficult decisions attract criticism.  The board should never become a ‘court of appeal’ against operational decisions made by the Principal, because this immediately undermines the Principal’s authority and erodes the governance-management separation of duties.  The board should evaluate the Principal’s performance rigorously and regularly through mutually agreed procedures and timeframes, understanding that this is a far more effective and professional way to ensure quality than interfering with the Principal’s day-to-day work.

- Dr Stephen Codrington