A first-time, young Head of an independent School arrived at a somewhat floundering school and inherited a Board of 18 dedicated, caring professionals in middle management positions. They were doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects, consultants, and clergy, but no one was a CEO of a private or publicly held company. They were also all current parents. Whenever fellow parents brought them issues or they heard about concerns, their natural tendency was to ask the Head to act now on the complaint. They often tried to use their own professional expertise to solve the issue from a legal, accounting, HR, or similar perspective.
These board members were moderately well off but not wealthy so they could not give very generously. They were not members of corporate boards and tended to serve on the School Board only as long as their children were in the School and happy there. They did not have reporting relationships to boards but had business and professional partners. They did not often terminate an employee. In other words, they were like 98% of board members of independent and international schools. These board members were well educated, well meaning, generally gracious and kind, and except for one person, were not very prominent members of the local community in the government, business, industrial or philanthropic realms.
This School played second or third fiddle to stronger schools in town and its admissions and fund raising reflected that lack of board “heavyweights”.
Then one day the CEO of a major corporation in town came to see this new Head and said his son at another competing school was failing French, and then, Spanish. His child was feeling very discouraged and losing self-confidence. The Head suggested that the boy might be more successful at studying the Chinese language offered at this School. The Head explained that in a sample testing situation at a major American University, students with diagnosed learning issues who had been unable to learn western languages could excel in Chinese. The father took the risk and moved the son to the School.
Four years later, that same Father became the Board chair and was still the CEO of this major corporation. The Board had grown to 28 board members, half of whom were Fortune 500 CEOs brought into the School and on the Board by the new Chair. The son went off to an Ivy League university based in part on how he had excelled in Chinese.
The School had had no culture of charitable giving and no endowment initially. These new Board members helped build the endowment to an impressive level.
The Board had become strategic in its thinking, big picture in its ambition, and laser focused on the mission. The CEOs on the board DID see the forest for the trees, and with few exceptions, were not micromanaging.
So why do not more international and independent school boards recruit those who are answerable to boards and who hire and fire people for a living much like heads of school must do. Perhaps they try and fail. Or perhaps they try too little. Or perhaps the rumor is the CEO types tend to interfere more in operations than “professionals.” This Consultant has very seldom known that to be true.
Our schools need more individuals who think strategically by profession; who understand the head of school in her or his CEO role; and who help guard against inappropriate, unwise and sometime dangerous intrusion into management by well-meaning board members.
We always seek a balance of professions on our boards. The CEO role is mostly vacant. What we need most are individuals who govern with wisdom, experience and dedication.
© 2024 Littleford & Associates. All Rights Reserved.
Potrected by Google reCaptcha – Privacy – Terms