Nailing the Principal’s annual performance review

Every board knows (or should know) how important it is to conduct an annual review of the Principal’s performance.  The conduct of these annual reviews is usually specified in writing in the Principal’s contract, the goals are usually negotiated well in advance, and the timing is normally specified with precise clarity.  And yet, many Principals with whom I have worked complain that their performance reviews simply don’t happen.  In a few cases it may be even worse; the review is conducted in ways that are completely inconsistent with their contract or negotiated process.

Board chairs are often busy people – sometimes they are even ‘quite important’ people. It is therefore not difficult to imagine a situation where the Principal mentions that the review is imminent, the chair promises to get the process underway, but time passes, urgent issues arise, and the performance review slips quietly into the background of the board’s thinking.  This can become a demoralising scenario for a Principal who is keen to serve the board and advance its priorities but can’t do so effectively without a full and frank conversation about the board’s thinking and goals.

There are five steps that a Principal can take to ensure an effective annual review takes place while also ensuring they have every opportunity to “nail” the review when it does happen.

Step 1: Make sure the review happens.

No Principal should ever assume that the annual review shall take place as planned or scheduled.  It is usually safer to assume that board members are busy people – perhaps almost busy as the Principal! – and therefore they appreciate help in making the annual review happen.  One good approach is for the Principal to include it as an item on the agenda for one of the weekly conversations that (should) always happen between a Principal and the Board Chair, thus gently initiating the process a couple of months before the scheduled date.

Step 2: Help develop the review process.

Most boards adopt a fairly flexible, semi-formal approach to annual reviews (unlike the far more rigorous 360-degree appraisals that typically precede end-of-contract renewal negotiations).  Although the timing and the Principal’s goals for the year will have been established, the precise nature of the process is often more malleable.  Some schools handle the annual review as an extended conversation between the Principal and the Board Chair over coffee and biscuits, but it can be more productive and generative if the Principal can guide the thinking towards a slightly more structured process, such as:

• Stage 1: Form a small team of two or three board members (one of whom is the Board Chair as convenor) to conduct the review.  This is to avoid criticism that the Board Chair may have allowed personal feelings (either positive or negative) to distort the neutrality of the process.
• Stage 2: Share the Principal’s job description with the review panel to use as a basis for the review.  If this job description can be formatted into a word processing document with spaces between each responsibility and each attribute, the review panel has an instant evaluation form to use which, helpfully, can also be used as a self-evaluation form by the Principal.
• Stage 3: Presuming a set of agreed annual goals for the Principal’s work was determined at the beginning of the year, these goals should be added to the word processing document identified in stage 2 to complete a comprehensive review form.
• Stage 4: Develop a schedule that allows (a) the Principal’s written self-evaluation to be received by the team a week or so before the review meeting, and (b) the meeting (or meetings) to be completed well before the due date.
• Stage 5: Having received the Principal’s self-evaluation, the review team meets (without the Principal) for an hour or two to compare the self-evaluation with the Principal’s stated goals for the year and other indicators of performance.  Areas of alignment are noted, and areas of difference are identified.  The team then agrees on key questions and talking points to raise during the forthcoming meeting with the Principal.
• Stage 6: The review team and the Principal meet in person for a couple of hours or so to discuss the Principal’s self-evaluation in the context of the role description and goals for the year.  A neutral person (such as the Principal’s PA) should be present to take accurate minutes of the meeting.  By the end of the meeting there should be a shared consensus of the Principal’s strengths and achievements together with agreement on areas for improvement and goals for the coming year.  
• Stage 7: The draft minutes from the meeting are circulated by confidential circular e-mail to those present at the meeting, who propose changes if required and then confirm the accuracy of the minutes, also via confidential circular e-mail.  
• Stage 8: At the next board meeting and in the presence of the Principal, the Board Chair (as the convenor of the review team) presents a summary of the review team’s work and outlines the proposed goals for the Principal for the coming year.  The Principal is offered the opportunity to add any comments, after which Board members have the opportunity to ask the Principal, the Board Chair and the review team members any relevant questions.  With the Principal present, the Board collectively approves the Principal’s goals for the coming year.
• Stage 9: Towards the end of the same board meeting, the Board should meet in Executive Committee (i.e. with only voting members in attendance; the Principal and any other school employees attending the meeting having been asked to vacate the room). In the Executive Committee session, board members are given the opportunity to engage in a confidential discussion, including consideration of any adjustments to the Principal’s remuneration for the coming year.  The decisions arising from the Executive Committee discussion should be communicated verbally and in writing by the Board Chair to the Principal at the earliest opportunity.
• Stage 10: The Board Chair follows up the Principal’s annual review by issuing a public message to the appropriate elements of the wider school community informing them that the Board has conducted its annual review of the Principal.  In this message, the Board Chair would usually publicly thank the Principal for efforts made during the year and offer congratulations on several named achievements.

Step 3: Approach the review diligently.

An annual performance review is no trivial matter.  Some School Principals may develop a negative attitude towards their Board if they think board members are not seeing the review as an important priority.  If this causes a Principal (perhaps understandably) to view the review process (or board members) in a dismissive manner, then a risk arises that the Principal may not participate as actively, as comprehensively, or as punctually as required.  Whatever the circumstances, it is in the Principal’s best interests to treat the review process seriously and commit to it fully.

Step 4: Keep written records.

The Principal’s self-evaluation is a key element in the review process.  This is understandable as board members are only intermittent visitors to the school and as such, they are not able to know (or remember) every facet of a Principal’s day-to-day work.  The Principal’s self-evaluation should be supported where possible by data and evidence that helps to build a comprehensive overview of the year’s work and achievements, including congratulatory e-mails and messages of appreciation received from staff, students and parents that collectively build and convey a compelling narrative.  Most Principals are reluctant to boast, but the annual review is one place where it is appropriate to do so.

Step 5: Approach the review with humility.

Notwithstanding my previous comment about boasting, the attitude with which the Principal approaches the review should be one of humility.  In other words, the Principal should follow the advice that is often given to a school’s sports teams – be humble in victory, gracious in defeat.  In the context of a Principal’s annual review, this means accepting compliments without displaying vanity and taking on board (as opposed to challenging) suggestions for improvements or ratings and comments by others that might seem harsh.  It is worth remembering that the review is being undertaken by well-meaning people who have (almost always) never been a School Principal themselves and can therefore only begin to imagine the range of day-to-day pressures that the job entails.

The annual performance review should be one of the most valuable and insightful professional experiences for a School Principal. At its best, it is a healthy reality check, a doorway through which the school’s future can be re-framed, an occasion to be encouraged and congratulated, and a golden opportunity to re-align with the Board.  Unfortunately, some boards fail to realise the potential of the annual performance review, and their lack of commitment to the process results in significant loss to the school, its students and staff, the Board and the Principal. 

Whatever the Board’s attitude towards the annual performance review, I encourage every Principal to remain optimistic and committed to their role.  Our next generation requires nothing less.

- Dr Stephen Codrington

Thank you to Vecteezy for use of the image in this article.