This Consultant received an e mail from a Head of School:

“After five years in my current position, I just received a positive evaluation and a two-year extension of my contract.

Three days later, the Board Chair informed me that the Board, without soliciting my opinion or consent first, was proceeding with a forensic set of interviews with a subset of my faculty, leadership team, and parents whom they had selected. They had developed an online survey tool with questions about my performance and my strengths and weaknesses as a leader. I was told that surveys of this sort reflect best practice especially if there is any feedback coming to a mostly parent board from the parent body.

Several days later the Chair and other Members of the Executive Committee asked for a meeting with me. They informed me they were not going to renew my contract after all, and I viewed this decision as a direct result of the survey. I learned that only about 30% of the parents, 8 teachers and 5 members of the senior leadership team completed the survey. I was told that there was nothing “earth shattering” about the results, but clearly, I was no longer a “good fit” to lead the School.

They implied they would pay me for the balance of this year and the following and that we would work out together what the public announcement would say. No matter what language the Board and I agree upon, the implication is that I was “fired” and that affects me, my family, and my career.

Their transition plan is to bring back the prior head, who retired 5 years ago, to serve as a two-year interim while the search is launched.

I regard the survey as the culprit both in its initiation, its format, and its intent. Clearly, people whom I had offended found an opportunity to pay me back for some tough but clearly important decisions I had made. The Board members did not dispute that.

I do hope that boards will think carefully about designing an evaluation process that sends this message to heads:  Do not rock the boat; do not terminate anyone; do not make important changes for fear of angering someone. Is this the way to lead a school?”

What are the lessons learned here?

1. This happens all the time, far more often than heads or boards will admit.

2. Often non-renewals and dismissals are sudden and may result from a poorly managed evaluation.

3. Often head dismissals occur when the board chair changes, and there is no chemistry between the head and chair.

4. Board-driven surveys are always a risk. These should not be taken lightly. Timing is everything. The implied intent and purpose of the survey often leads to a result that those filling it out believe that the board wants.

5. Those who answer a survey first are usually the most disgruntled. Never report the results of a school climate, parent, or head evaluation survey unless there is at least a two-thirds response rate and there is an agreement that the results will not be published unless that percentage is reached.

6. Choose better, less manipulative tools to evaluate heads of school

Many many heads over the years have told this Consultant they had a contract renewal only to be “fired” not long after a survey or interview process with key direct reports or teachers was launched.

It is important to note that long-term heads who have amassed significant political capital may welcome such a process and survive it. However, others may be vulnerable.

The board chair is the head of school’s biggest public supporter and the most honest private critic. If there is criticism of a head’s performance, the chair should convey this message openly, honestly, and as soon as possible and work with the head to overcome the concerns expressed.

The job of head of school is hard enough. The stress on heads to manage it in a a time of culture wars and financial pressures worldwide makes the job even more challenging. We should be focusing on head renewal, head support and head compensation as well as appropriate guidance and counseling.