Seven (Not So) Simple Rules for Board Success – Part II
One way to portray leadership is via a three-legged stool – each leg must be present for the three to stand together – consisting of responsibility, authority, and accountability. Boards must assign responsibility for doing the work. They must delegate sufficient authority over the work to get the job done. And they must assure accountability for the work. Before all else, they must take responsibility and be accountable for the board’s own performance.
Effective school boards follow seven (not so) simple rules for success. In Part I of this post, I explained the first three rules. Rules 4-7 follow:
Rule 4: Be prepared (at all times) to hire a superintendent and assign the superintendent responsibility for all staff work.
Rationale:
We often hear that the most important decision a board can make is hiring its superintendent. If so, why do boards routinely ignore this function by failing to prepare for it? Why do they give away so much of the responsibility for the hiring process to an outside consultant whose values cannot adequately reflect a long-lasting and ongoing community connection, and who only gains a surface understanding through interviews and surveys? The importance of this function seems obvious, but most boards don’t really prepare for it. When a vacancy at the top occurs, the typical board is then caught flat-footed and must re-learn this skill “on the fly” because board turnover usually is significant if not complete between such CEO-turnover situations.
Implication:
Assignment of responsibility to the superintendent must be accompanied by the expectation that the superintendent will answer to the board for everything the district as an organization does or fails to do, in keeping with the board’s policy guidance. If so, the first priority is to, in the words of Jim Collins (Good to Great) “get the right people [superintendent] on the bus!”
Why it isn’t so simple:
A board may be happy with its current superintendent’s performance, so (in the face of numerous urgent issues) it fails to prepare for the possibility of a sudden unexpected vacancy in the most important position at the top of the organization. In such a case, the urgent tends to overwhelm the important. Then the board, when the important becomes urgent, relies on a search firm (one with minimal investment in the long-term success of the district) to guide the process. This very typical sequence exposes a failure to take long-term and ongoing responsibility for the board’s performance of what has been called its most important board function.
When boards follow this rule:
The board leads the process. It prepares ahead when things are going well, by identifying the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are needed when hiring the best superintendent candidate. It creates a process that proceeds well beyond the selection of the best candidate, on to the contracting phase; the assignment of responsibilities that align policy, job description, and contract; and the selectee’s transition into the position as the subordinate partner in a governance system that is already in place. Such depth of planning reduces the likelihood of situation-dependent board unpreparedness and thereby decreases the likelihood that it will be dependent on an outside search firm with much less of a stake in the outcome.
Rule 5: Delegate authority over the work that the superintendent needs to get the job done.
Rationale:
If they are going to be able to do their job, superintendents must have the freedom to make decisions and the ability to establish programs and direct staff with sufficient authority to see the job through. The superintendent’s authority and freedom of action should be explicitly clarified in writing if confusion is to be avoided later on.
Implication:
The board must follow-up its delegation of authority by allocating sufficient resources to get the job done. It also allows sufficient freedom in decision-making to give the superintendent every opportunity to succeed. Finally, the board supports the superintendent’s decision-making and exercise of authority while getting the job done.
Why it isn’t so simple:
In the afterglow of the hiring process, when boards can be expected to be happy with their selection, a board often fails to make explicit the authority and freedom of action it has given to its superintendent. Superintendents later find themselves in a pickle when the board expresses high expectations for results yet retains control of all the reins of power, withholding from the superintendent the ability to make decisions without being second-guessed.
When boards follow this rule:
The superintendent knows what the board expects, and takes the necessary actions to deliver on those expectations, making decisions and using authority appropriate to the job, knowing that the board will support the superintendent in making those decisions because it will hold the superintendent accountable for the results of those decisions.
Rule 6: Hold the superintendent accountable for following the board’s guidance regarding community expectations for district results
Rationale:
Boards are sometimes rightly accused of passively going through the motions when it comes to accountability and evaluation. They conduct evaluation as a single event occurring once a year, an event that focuses on the superintendent’s qualifications but is often not directly tied to district performance. They allow the superintendent to set the agenda for accountability by selecting and highlighting data that supports a narrative (e.g. “Things are going well.” or “Things are improving” or “The superintendent’s performance is in accordance with professional standards.” If it allows the superintendent to lead the accountability process, or otherwise takes its collective “eye” off the district performance “ball” what does the board stand for in terms of its expectations?
Implication:
Based on results determined in a comprehensive accountability process, the board makes clear its determination of reasonable progress toward desired results, then makes necessary adjustments in board guidance for the future.
Why it isn’t so simple:
A board sometimes behaves like a schizophrenic, initially taking a hands-off approach to the superintendent in the wake of post-hire euphoria, then when the relationship starts to get more serious, lowering the boom by expressing its disappointment through reactive guidance that, up to that point, the board had failed to clarify. Lacking clearly stated expectations from the start leads to a predictable yearly situation wherein the superintendent is left wondering late in the year (say in May) how the evaluation will turn out at the end of the evaluation period (June, for example.) This sequence can be a precursor to the superintendent’s early departure, and the culmination of an inadequate “succession, search & transition” plan as described in Rule 4.
Part of a good accountability system is to monitor “what is” (the state of the district) and comparing that with “what is desired” (desired results for students) Follow-up requires making adjustments in guidance to ensure that the vision of “what will be” is aligned with “what is desired.” The board should take care to adjust only the board’s work (for example, revising its policy expectations) that affects the district. It is up to the superintendent to adjust the staff’s work, knowing that accountability for results will follow.
When boards follow this rule:
Boards that follow this rule clearly identify their (the community’s) expectations of desired results for students and what would not be acceptable in pursuit of those results. They ensure regular and rigorous monitoring of results for students and (for programs) key indicators of program success, based on expectations that have been previously documented.
Rule 7: Take responsibility for the board’s own performance.
Rationale:
Recalling the proverb (“Physician, heal thyself!”) the board begins the process of assigning responsibility by paying attention to the board itself, asking the question “If things were to go wrong, who will be responsible?” This attitude of total ownership of responsibility is strongly suggested in a leadership lesson offered by General Bruce C. Clarke: “When things go wrong in your command, start searching for the reason in increasingly larger concentric circles around your own desk.” Jocko Willink, an author of Extreme Ownership, vividly explains this concept in a TED Talk.
Implication:
Rule 1 (which requires the board to take full responsibility, rather than to “pick and choose” areas) must be understood to include taking responsibility for the board’s own performance as the most important factor within the board’s ability to influence overall school system success. The board should ensure that it includes itself in the same accountability process it uses for the superintendent: clarifying the role; defining performance expectations; monitoring performance; determining whether performance meets expectations; stating its conclusions; and making needed adjustments for a successful future.
Why it isn’t so simple:
A board that does not take responsibility for its own performance is by default expecting its superintendent to assume responsibility for board business, worrying about guiding board decision-making, responding to board dysfunction, training new board members, etc. This adds an unrealistic burden on the superintendent and sets up a situation ripe for conflict, as board members will resist being “manipulated” or (to use a milder yet still patronizing word) “guided” toward board effectiveness.
When boards follow this rule:
The board carefully defines the board role and describes board activity for which the board should be held accountable to the community it represents. It lays out a framework for self-discipline through a public accountability process that systematically reviews the board’s own performance, identifies areas for improvement, plans needed improvements, and works toward same.
© 2020 governance101.com
Rick Maloney, EdD has more than twenty years of experience as a local school board member and nine years as a director of his state school boards’ association. He is a board consultant and author of A Framework for School Governance (2017). and Putting Policy Governance to Work (2018). He can be reached at rmaloney@governance101.com or rick_maloney@hotmail.com