Where's the Consensus
On what schools should do (or not) with their former heads?
Got a compelling read last week, courtesy of a dear friend and colleague from Nashville. An actual hardcover book, with actual pages— Life After Power by Goldman Sachs partner and polymath Jared Cohen, a decorated big thinker. Applying a case study method, he shares the stories of seven US presidents following their exit from the highest office in the land, and while their circumstances are obviously far, far loftier than anything most of us would ever experience, the broader lessons still hit home, at least for me right now. How best to be a former holder of a role, and how best, for all in a given community, to make some good use of any hard-won experience?
Interestingly, there’s no visible consensus in how schools address that question, based on the dozens of examples I see playing out in my vintage of once-but-no-longer heads of school. You’d guess, given the tendency toward group think demonstrated by independent schools on so many other fronts, that a predominant model would emerge. But no— the stories run the gamut. Instead, we get this range:
First, from the folks who never quite leave. Following the example of presidents emeriti at many colleges and universities, they settle into a nice sinecure, with associated parachute paycheck, and help continue the good work already under way, largely focused on major donor stewardship. The role could also include some advisory consultation with the next head of school, with associated risks of stepping on toes and a lack of clarity about who is really in charge. But on balance, this scenario doesn’t happen much. Too many pitfalls.
Instead, the unspoken understanding about proper post-retirement professional etiquette encourages a kind of self-imposed exile, a vanishing act. It’s a clean solution to the challenge for schools to turn the page. Ideally, this might include a long trip out of town, maybe overseas, and maybe even permanently. The risk on this one is profound discontinuity and a kind of vacuum when it comes to institutional memory and direction, but the advantage of a fresh start after what may have been a long tenure, not to mention job fatigue on the head’s part, makes this pathway relatively common, partly as a function of inertia.
A particularly unsettling version of that humble exit strategy includes Board members going a step further and explicitly asking the departing head of school to actually stay away for a given period of time— a persona non grata, externally dictated exile. Several colleagues shared such stories with me recently, complete with resulting and understandably hard feelings. It sounds like the likelihood of this hard-edged and dubious decision correlates directly with the length and quality of the head’s years of service. Nervous trustees make questionable choices when worrying about starting a new chapter. My worry is these numbers may be growing.
Somewhere in the middle of the range sits the post-retirement status of occasional appearance maker. Probably only with a formal invitation, it might mean turning up for an important school event, likely as part of a large crowd, maybe to wave the fundraising flag. Hanging around on the sidelines of athletic contests, dropping by at graduation, and just plain stopping by to walk the halls are likely not to generate a good look, even with the best intentions— certainly an old school, last generation approach.
So we’re left with the challenge of how to get the balance right, and the answer depends entirely on personalities and circumstance. You’d think maybe best practice would weigh more heavily, but such seems not be the case. Still, couldn’t the argument be made for some general truths to come into play, namely that:
Connections across years can strengthen and broaden schools’ planning efforts
Linking heads of schools’ eras makes a unifying statement to their communities
Timely access to prior heads’ perspective (maybe wisdom) helps protect schools from the perils of short-sighted presentism
Former heads often have deep and abiding commitments to the school’s wellbeing
This may be another case where the K-12 world has looked to the private sector, land of non-compete contracts and abrupt strategic turns, to provide an example— and while occasionally a retiring CEO stays on as an executive chairperson, a McKinsey study generally urges those leaders to step aside and stay away. The question is whether there are material differences in the context for schools, whether the corporate answer is the right answer.
With our version of the Great Resignation happening since the pandemic wind down, the number of experienced and recently retired heads of schools may be at an all-time high. It’s a tricky one. We stepped down for good reasons, and my guess is that almost none of us would double back if given the chance. Similarly, I doubt we’d pass on the opportunity for some meaningful ongoing connection, right-sized and right-timed, in support of our successors. It will be interesting to see if anything new emerges on that front, in this and other professions.
In case you’re curious, my goal, however unattainable, is to be the Jimmy Carter of ex school heads— maybe not the greatest in my turn at the wheel, but active in all the right ways thereafter and a conduit for good things to happen in the wake of having held that role, at just the right distance. Taking inspiration, as Cohen reflected in closing his book, from the way that Carter “turned the former presidency into an office of its own, and used his experience, status, expertise, and connections to build an independent platform…” Admittedly high bar, comparison surely imperfect, but the spirit is willing.
Wondering who’s blazing a trail out there in the governance world, reaching for what seems to be some low-hanging fruit.