Before applying for an open Headship, most candidates familiarize themselves with a prospective school’s history and general prospects. They typically review various advancement and marketing materials, the website, and social media efforts. They may even seek constituents’ viewpoints on issues, goals, and opportunities that may impact the next headship.
Most schools have an official planning document (a strategic plan with a matching strategic financial plan, a long range plan, or an accreditation report serving as de facto planning document). Head candidates typically review this information before an onsite visit.
A candidate for a School Head position will likely ask the three following basic questions to determine whether your school is a good match for his or her skills and leadership approach. As the Board President or Chair of the Search Committee, prepare to answer these questions.
1. How old is the planning document?
If the planning document has been in effect for five years or more, it has exceeded its usable life span. In that case, the new Head must presumably help spearhead developing a new plan. The Head candidate will want to know if:
- a basic direction for the school is simply assumed (and, obviously, the new Head must “fit” this assumed new direction), or
- he or she will be expected to take the lead in developing a process from which a new plan will emerge.
If the planning document is relatively new (one to three years old), in your interview with the Head candidate, focus on what has been accomplished. How much of the new Head’s time and effort will be dedicated to implementing the remaining components?
2. What process did the Board use to develop the planning document?
If the school uses a Board-developed plan, the Head candidate may learn from interviews with non-Board members whether the plan has widespread support (or not) from its constituents. An obvious lack of non-Board support does not necessarily make the plan a “bad” one. However, it may make this headship less attractive, depending on the challenge the candidate is willing to assume.
If the school’s plan is either constituency-based or an accreditation report, the savvy Head candidate will examine the financial implications of the plan (or report) with extreme care. Often, this document has not undergone any strategic financial testing and reshaping, and there are no costs or revenue sources assigned to the various items. As a result, it is only a wish list or a series of vacuous recommendations.
This, too, does not mean the headship is wrong for the candidate. The person may be exactly the right person to save the ship from imminent danger. (Bear in mind, however, that people often don’t want to hear this information. Calls to fiscal responsibility, while appreciated in retrospect, are seldom popular or exciting in prospect.)
Tune into live webinars every Wednesday during the school year to get specific, research-backed insight you can immediately apply at your school.
3. What process has been used (or will be used) to carry out the planning document?
The Head candidate will want to know how your school moves—or expects to move—from plan to action. The person may become wary if the Board’s traditional approach is to:
- operate with many standing committees;
- determine committee membership in part by voluntary “signing up” processes; and
- allow committees to set their own agendas. This suggests that you can expect little when it comes to Board-level implementation of the planning document.
A new Head could introduce operational approaches that focus on the planning document. However, unless the Board offers strategic support, the Board may be unable to keep pace with the Head’s administration. This could easily cripple your efforts. Is the Board leadership willing to adopt a less bureaucratic approach, one that relies on committee action to carry out the planning document?
Bear in mind the greater danger to the headship may be a bureaucratic Board’s propensity to languish in “current-events” discussions at Board and Board committee meetings. Nothing will frustrate, and perhaps defeat, a new headship more quickly than a “little-picture” Board wallowing in the operations minutiae of a Head’s revived, fast-paced administration.
