Introduction
I attended a “Vision and Goals” meeting which was chaired by the Head of School and included the Principals and Assistant Principals of the school’s five main divisions (Early Childhood, Lower School, Middle School, Upper School and the Dyslexia Program). The meeting lasted a little over an hour and the stated goal was to concretize a set of general 5-year school-wide Vision Statements into specific Goals.
How would you describe the culture of the group?
The culture of the school leadership team I observed was casual but productive. This was a group of administrators who were obviously accustomed to working with each other. There was evidence of personality conflicts between several members, as well as echoes of past incidents which some team members were still upset about but, to their credit, they did not allow these issues to get in the way of their productivity.
What was the leader’s leadership style?
The leader, the Head of School in this case, seemed to favor a hands-off approach. He presented a challenging, vision-based task to the group and then asked what they needed from him to complete it. They asked a few questions, which he answered, and then he excused himself from the room. His attitude struck me as very similar to the role often played by teachers, who present a student group with a problem, provide necessary resources to discover a solution and then step back and let the students solve the problem.
What roles did the key members play? What were their significant interactions and effects of those interactions?
The key members of this particular team were the two Principals and, to a lesser extent, their Assistant Principals. The two Principals led the discussion once the Head of School left and kept the rest of the group focused. While the two of them demonstrated obvious professional respect for each other, tension between them was apparent and this led several group members to “side with their best friend,” resulting in a stalemate from which there is no obvious solution.
Again, I want to stress that these conflicts did not stymie the group; they were accustomed to the situation and the key members respected one another professionally. They possessed the ability to move past these disagreements and compromise when necessary.
Based on the agenda and discussions, what was the overt or implied purpose of the meeting?
The meeting I observed was a follow-up strategic session. In an earlier session, the group had identified a short list of long-term (3-5 year) goals for a school improvement plan. The purpose of this specific meeting was to turn the grand, vision language into concrete, quantifiable goals that could be recognized when they were achieved.
Did the discussions reference, or were they aligned to, the school’s vision, mission, and goals?
Absolutely; this was the explicit purpose of the meeting. Of course, discussions drifted as the members of the team became distracted by side points and the demands of the school day invaded the meeting. But, overall, the group’s stated goal was to outline concrete steps toward achieving the school’s improvement goals and they stayed true to that purpose.
Were there examples of collaborative decision making? If yes, what was the effect/value of the collaboration? If no, why did no collaborative decision making occur?
Collaborative decision making occurred throughout the meeting. As I have said earlier, this was a talented group of professionals used to working together. They know each other well and frequently refer to one another for advice.
The collaboration allowed the group to achieve solutions that met the specific goals of each division from the outset. If they had met in smaller, division-specific teams initially, their solutions would have met their own needs but still require adjustment to mesh with other divisions. In addition to the obvious benefit of additional resources, in this case collaborative decision making saved time by moving the entire group closer to findings which met all of their needs successfully.
Were there instances of shared responsibility? If yes, what effect did the sharing have on the ownership of the issue(s)? If no, why do you think that was so?
I believe the entire meeting was an example of shared responsibility. The different members of the team all stood to benefit from the discussion, but no single topic was the purview of only one of the constituencies present. Simple participation was shared responsibility since each point of the discussion spanned across divisions.
What process was used to bring concerns/input from the school as a whole to the leadership team, and what process will be used to relay information and decisions back to the school?
None that I was aware of. This is, I believe, a specific challenge for this leadership group. Outside of the occasional anecdotal (“My teachers are telling me that they think…”) this is a fairly isolated group. I was the only non-member present and, while the Administrative team doesn’t meet in this fashion often, when they do, they do so on their own.
Similarly, I’ve seen absolutely no sharing of the meeting’s findings with anyone who wasn’t in the room when it occured.
Are there committees, processes, or infrastructures within the school to address issues identified by the team?
None at all; see point above.
Did the school leadership team meeting (content, process, interactions, roles played by different participants, and culture) contribute to the attainment of the overall vision, mission, and goals of the school and the enhancement of student learning?
This group meeting was productive; I’m sure of that. There was a positive energy in the room and the different team members were excited to have the opportunity to work together on the “big picture.” However, I don’t believe that their findings will constitute a significant contribution to the attainment of the school’s overall mission or the enhancement of student learning. The discussion was simply too ethereal, too theoretical and too far away from classrooms and teachers to matter in that way.
I could be wrong; the group’s findings could have been communicated upward, to the Head of School and Board of Governors. If so, I am simply unaware of how they were used. But my feeling is that, unfortunately, it was a positive exercise which yielded little of any practical value.