Recently, this Consultant was onsite at an independent school for a week on the topic of strategic planning. The School is a well-regarded, single sex, K-12 day school with a Head in his third year and about 120 faculty.

During the strategic planning interviews with focus groups of teachers from the three divisions, it appeared that something “was up” in response to my questions about strategic challenges/risks/threats/opportunities. The teachers seemed distracted. Still others were carefully watching a group of three teachers who were sitting together and seemed to be close friends.

After these sessions, I asked the Head if there were about 10 highly respected, popular teachers with whom I could have individual confidential interviews.  I asked the Head, “Would you mind giving me the names of those whom you may trust and those whom you may not, across all divisions.”

I learned from this group, directly and indirectly, that a petition was circulating seeking the signatures of eligible people to vote for forming a collective bargaining unit. There was a Faculty Advisory Committee that met to counsel the Head periodically and provide feedback from the faculty. It became obvious that faculty were communicating with parents and using the strategic planning process as a springboard for the vote and to engage parents to support the movement. The Faculty Advisory Committee had been in a moribund state for a few years, but it was resurrecting and playing a role in this effort.

Following a long-term revered Head, the new Head was hired to be a change agent.  He was charismatic but new to the role and was very determined to be innovative.  He wanted to cut back on the number of reduced workloads that as much as 50% of the teachers had been offered over time. These were for a variety of jobs, most not representing one less class of a standard four course load. A reduced class was costing the School $20,000 per teacher. Most teachers with these reduced loads also had one or more annual stipends ranging from $2,500 to $7,500.

Because the Board felt that finance was not the previous Head’s strong suit, it gave the new Head several financially related goals upon being hired. There was neither talk of a transition time nor the formation of a transition committee. The Board insisted on launching a strategic plan in his first year which is almost never a wise idea because a head in his first year has not built sufficient political capital to be making important decisions that would affect faculty morale.

I indicated to the Board that we needed a governance workshop right away with the entire Board and the Head, and we shifted from a strategic planning process to a school climate process which took a few months. The ultimate outcome: The faculty felt that they could work with the new Head or at least in sufficient numbers so a formal union vote was postponed and ultimately did not occur.

Strategic planning is not always about a capital campaign, a revisit of the mission language, retention of faculty and staff, programs, facilities, and diversity/equity/ inclusion/belonging, for example, although one or more of these themes are typically part of any final plan. Strategic planning is also a tool to make parents, alumni and staff feel heard and to address either underlying issues emanating from a small, disgruntled group of stakeholders or new emerging issues from the general population of the school.

An example of this is a P-K to 8 Montessori school that was bleeding enrollment in grades 5 to 8 as families jumped ship to ensure placement in other local K to 12 schools.  This Consultant’s focus groups with parents revealed that the majority wanted the School to build a high school so they could stay. The Board initially thought the idea was a pipe dream. After much listening and prompting from the planning process, the Board decided to launch a unique high school program on another site. That School is now thriving and experiencing much less attrition across grade levels. A strategic planning process proved wrong the Board’s assumption about what the parents wanted, and the School emerged stronger than ever.

Not all strategic processes evolve in the same way. It is important to choose the right process, the right timing and to be open-minded and listen appropriately. Ultimately the process should protect a valued head and not throw that person under the bus. The point of a strategic process is to launch a school on the right path for the future, not to derail it.