Principled leadership

Perhaps surprisingly for the casual observer, school leadership can seem at times to have a similar level of complexity and intrigue as national politics, although (mercifully) at a smaller if no-less-intense scale. This is the case for all levels of school leadership, including school boards and senior executives.

Kelty’s first point: take responsibility.

I think there are two facets of taking responsibility – taking responsibility for ourselves and fulfilling our responsibility towards others. However, as the former US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, expressed so eloquently: “Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off”. For a leader or aspiring leader whose main but misguided focus is popularity, resistance inevitably leads to inertia, which is why responsible leadership is incompatible with popularity as its driving force. In the words of former Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, sometimes you just have to “crash through or crash”.

For some school boards and senior leaders, the alternative to accepting responsibility is trying to shift blame and responsibility towards others. This type of cowardly behaviour is inevitably damaging for any school. Therefore, an important part of taking responsibility as a leader is maintaining a calm, clear-thinking, resolute disposition, even when confronted by opposition, anger and blame.

Whenever a culture of blame is evident in a school, it needs to be addressed and replaced by a culture of responsibility. To paraphrase Harry Truman’s famous statement of the US President’s ultimate level of responsibility, the buck in a school stops with the Board and the Principal. A culture of blame is never helpful in a school. Schools which function well have a vibrant, healthy culture of collaboration and co-operation, together with a balanced mix of self-responsibility and collective duty towards one another.

A school principal sits at his desk with a sign reading "The buck stops here".

Kelty’s second point was to reject ideas that distract and divide.

Ideas that distract and divide fall into two main categories – straw man fallacies and “argumentum ad hominem”. (I guess there is also a possible third category – lies, deception and misinformation – but as Kelty says, “honesty will, nearly always, win over duplicity”, so I won’t dwell on that distracting third category here).

A straw man fallacy arises when someone misrepresents an opponent’s position, often by exaggerating it or making it more extreme (thus setting up a ‘straw man’), and then proceeds to attack the ‘straw man’ rather than address the real argument. “Argumentum ad hominem” arises when a person attacks an opponent on personal grounds rather than addressing the argument at hand (attacking the person rather than the argument). Sadly, both approaches are as common in schools as they are in wider society.

Differences of opinion and conflicts are inevitable whenever people interact meaningfully, and indeed they are central to a healthy democracy. It is the way in which these differences are handled that indicates the health of that democracy. Whether in a democracy or in a school, conflicts of ideas are to be welcomed, encouraged and embraced, whereas conflicts between people are destructive and divisive, and thus must not be tolerated.

Kelty’s third proposition (paraphrased) is that a leader should argue to the last breath for the ideas and ideals that make the school a better place. In the context of a school, those ideals should be articulated through the Mission (the school’s enduring purpose), the Vision (priorities in achieving the Mission over the next few years), and the Core Values (or Philosophy).

One of my most influential models for ‘arguing to the last breath for ideas and ideals’ has been Nelson Mandela. When I was Head of Li Po Chun United World College in Hong Kong, Mandela was my ultimate boss as he was the Honorary President of the UWCs at the time. I would often quote his inspiring words about education in speeches, words such as “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”, and more autobiographically, “It is through education that the daughter of a peasant can become a doctor, that a son of a mineworker can become the head of the mine, or that a child of farm workers can become the President of a great nation”.

Stephen Codrington stands beside the efficgy of Nelson Mandela at Madama Tussauds in London

Full disclosure: my photo with Nelson Mandela was taken at Madame Tussauds wax museum in London.

Nelson Mandela has few equals as an example of persistence and determination, given that he spent his entire adult life mobilising his people against apartheid, remaining undeterred through 27 years of imprisonment. Mandela’s persistence in patiently arguing for positive change is legendary, and I cannot think of any better role model that I, or my students, or my school board, could have had for “arguing to the last breath for one’s ideas and ideals”.

Change – anywhere – inevitably provokes a reaction, and this is especially so in schools where inertia and personal interests can sometimes be more deeply entrenched than is the case in profit-focussed enterprises. In my various leadership roles, I have probably found myself in the position of advocating for robust discussions about change, and then managing the ensuing process of change, more than most other educational leaders. Indeed, the reason I first went into education many decades ago was to be a catalyst for bringing about positive change that would benefit young lives. I was therefore encouraged when I read Bill Kelty’s third proposition, because the sad reality is that the process of leading others through necessary change can at times be so overwhelmingly disheartening that many school leaders give up on it.

I have written elsewhere about the nature of school leadership (Authentic Leadership is more than Management, Servant Leadership and Falling into a River, and The best, most complex job in the world). Anyone in a position of leading a school, either as a board member or as a Principal, has been given an immense privilege. The actions and decisions of school leaders have the potential to influence not only the trajectory of hundreds, or even thousands, of people’s careers but also their entire lives. However, with that power comes great responsibility. Being a great leader in a school is not just about achieving goals and hitting targets; it is about creating a positive and supportive environment where everyone can flourish.

The former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, once said, “I do not know of anyone who became a leader as a result of having undergone a leadership course”. Given that almost half a trillion US dollars are spent on leadership development programs annually, that is a sobering claim, as is the finding of leadership derailment studies that 93% of leadership development programs fail to meet expectations.

Schools are notorious for NOT preparing their board members and principals for leadership roles. Very few school board members receive any professional development on their role before taking up their positions, and only a minority of schools have adequate formal induction programs for new board members. Similarly, most countries do not have any mandatory requirements for training aspiring principals to become Heads of Schools, although Principals do have more avenues for professional development once appointed than is usual for members of school boards.

The US educational consultant, John Littleford, claims that almost 80% of school principals are fired rather than leaving of their own volition. Correlation does not imply causation, but that statistic begs the question of whether more (or better) professional development for school boards might increase members’ reflective awareness of their duties of care and loyalty to their one employee – the Head of School.

Of course, Lee Kwan Yew is right in suggesting that authentic leadership cannot really be taught. True leadership is acquired through the rigours of experience, both in the heat of the moment when a leader is under fire and through the reflective process that follows. Nonetheless, sound training in effective leadership can provide a firm foundation for building the knowledge and skills required by school leaders.

There is an arguably even more important application of Kelty’s three tenets than the implications for a school’s leadership. Schools exist primarily for the formation of their students, and Kelty’s three tenets make an excellent set of guiding principles for students as they go through life.

The topic of developing leadership in students is often a controversial one. Over the years, I have heard strong arguments supporting the idea that every student should be trained for leadership, whether that leadership is of a family, a company or a country. I have also heard equally strong counterarguments claiming that leadership is not for everyone; it is an ability that only a few possess and so it sets children up for inevitable failure to tell them “everyone can be on top” or “you can be whatever you want to be”. To a large extent, these arguments tend to be futile because they seldom agree on what the word ‘leadership’ actually means for young people.

Personally, I believe developing leadership in students does not mean preparing them for political office; it means equipping them with whatever skills they need to become people of influence in whichever sphere of life they find themselves.