30/10/2016
Harvard research into the effectiveness of over 400 school leaders in the UK identifies 6 different categories of leader with only one group being effective in bringing about sustainable and long term improvement - but often being overlooked and underpaid for the impact they have. Harvard talks of the 'surgeon' leaders - going in to schools are making rapid change to bring about quick results, being praised for the short term gains, but failing to sustain longer term success for the school with gains falling away once they have gone. They talk of the 'soldier' leaders focused on cost cutting, removing inefficiencies and running the school like a major running a lean and hard working unit, but again failing to deliver sustainable improvement. The third type are the 'accountants', the leaders focused on growing the school, the numbers, the income generation with a view that the more money they have the more they can invest to make the school stronger and more attractive. 'All gloss and limited substance'. The 'philosophers' are the fourth group who believe themselves as expert teachers and spend time with their staff debating different teaching methods and introducing change bit by bit with the argument that improvement takes time - with limited impact on standards as students progress through the school year on year. Harvard consider that it is only the 'architects' that are really the leaders that achieve success. They spend their time on a long term view of change and transformation putting all the elements in place and building change and improvement step by step to ensure that there is a strong underpinning to future success. It is these leaders that often leave the real legacy of sustainable improvement but have possibly left the school before the real impact is seen - and are therefore overlooked by government and society for the work they have done.
What kind of leaders have you experienced. In the UK, from within the sample of 411, over 50% of the 'surgeons' received an CBE, OBE, or MBE and 43% were appointed as National Leaders in Education despite the fact that they were the worst performing leaders in this survey. The 'soldiers' and the 'accountants' receiving honours were at 30% and 27% respectively and all these, along with the 'philosophers' were generally being paid at least 20% more than the 'architects' who generally went un-noticed. Is school leadership all about personality and charisma and short-term successes, or is it about changing the life chances of whole communities and future generations attending the school?