A skills matrix builds a jigsaw puzzle, not a school board

Populating a school board using a skills matrix has become something of a sacred instrument in contemporary school governance.

The approach advocated by many traditional consultants, and even some registration and accreditation authorities, is quite straightforward.  They recommend that the board identifies the skills set it believes it needs, usually developing a predictable list that includes finance, law, education, marketing, human resources, property, risk management, architecture, technology, fundraising and perhaps international experience.  Once the list had been developed, the board maps those competencies against the skills and expertise of existing board members.  Gaps are identified, and future board member are recruited to fill the most conspicuous shortcomings.

In theory, this approach appears wonderfully rational.  If the board already has two accountants, why recruit another?  If nobody understands property, then find a property expert.  The result is a neat spreadsheet that promises a balanced and competent board, along with a strong sense of security that board composition is being managed well.

Unfortunately, that sense of security is often misplaced.  The problem is that a school board is not a huge jigsaw, and directors are not differently shaped jigsaw pieces.

Relying on a skills matrix risks reducing the recruitment of board members to a crude exercise in filling boxes.  Even more dangerously, it can create the illusion that a board is competent simply because all the boxes have been ticked.  As I have observed in my work, a board which comprises an accountant, lawyer, HR specialist, educator, marketing executive and property expert may possess an impressive collection of individual competencies while still being an extraordinarily dysfunctional governing body.  Such a board may lack curiosity, courage, independent judgement, strategic imagination, emotional intelligence or the willingness to challenge conventional wisdom.  They may be stuck in groupthink, or at the other end of spectrum, they may lack a common, coherent vision for the future of the school.  Indeed, they may even disagree about whether a common, coherent vision is needed! 

The trap of relying on a skills matrix to shape board recruitment is that the focus for selection is reduced to the overly simple question “What skills are we missing?” rather than the far more important but complex “What kind of person does this board need?”. To be blunt, and contrary to much traditional thinking about governance, school boards which function effectively almost invariably do so more through emotional intelligence and decision-making maturity than by ticking a list of its members’ professions.  Listening deeply, authentically engaging with others’ ideas, disagreeing agreeably, engaging in diverse patterns of thinking, and courageously but respectfully challenging others are the key skills that matter.

This makes obvious sense given that effective school board governance results not only from the decisions which are made, but also HOW those decisions are made.  Boards which function with mutual respect, empathy, humility and self-awareness foster more productive debate, stronger trust, superior crisis aversion, and wiser decision-making.  These require high-EQ capabilities, not simply completing an occupational skills matrix.

A preferable approach to building an effective board would focus on the challenges the school will face over the next five to ten years.  Before recruiting anyone, the board should reflect on its Strategic Vision and ask: “What decisions are we likely to have to make?”, “What risks will we confront?”, “What opportunities might we need to seize?”. and “What perspectives are currently absent from our conversations?”.  The answers to those question should suggest a “governance capability profile” which might still identify financial or legal expertise, but would also probably identify qualities such as curiosity, strategic thinking, independence, courage to dissent, understanding of the school’s community, experience of organisational transformation, technological literacy, digital fluency and the ability to think beyond the immediate interests of particular stakeholders.  The emphasis would thus shifts from collecting competencies to building collective aptitude.

An even more powerful approach would be to assess the board’s needs through the lens of perspectives rather than professions.  Does everyone around the table think alike? Are there people who understand the experience of parents, students, teachers, alumni and the wider community?  Does the board contain people who instinctively see opportunities as well as those who instinctively see risk?  Are there board members capable of asking the uncomfortable questions that everyone else is avoiding?  Is there a diverse range of perspectives coming from members of different ages, cultures, genders, and yes, occupations.  Diversity of thinking can be considerably more valuable than diversity of résumés.  Indeed, deliberately appointing someone who does not fit the conventional skills matrix may sometimes be the most responsible governance decision a board can make.

Therefore, the solution to recruiting board members should not be whether a matrix is complete but whether the board is capable of thinking collectively and productively about the school’s future.  A skills matrix may be useful as a diagnostic tool as it can expose genuine deficiencies.  However, a skills matrix should never become the sole or major framework to determine board composition.  The danger for most boards is not so much having a gap in the matrix, but rather the risk of having the meeting table surrounded by highly qualified people who lack the creativity, courage, independent judgement, strategic imagination, and emotional intelligence to advance the school towards a better future.

A good board is not a collection of impressive CVs. It is a deliberately, intentionally constructed community of independent thinkers who share a love for the school and have the capability of exercising sound collective judgement, even when the answers are neither obvious nor comfortable. 

- Dr Stephen Codrington