Five Tips For Better Trustee Communication
Wearing two hats in a community is genuinely tricky..
Welcome to the Talking Out of School newsletter! If you were forwarded this email, hit the subscribe button to get weekly insights into indy schools today. Thank you for your support! Here’s more information on program offerings from Julie Faulstich and Stony Creek Strategy.
Hello Good People of TOOS!
Thank you to the enthusiastic reception for last week’s article, linked below, where I looked at some of the issues holding boards and heads back from being a higher performing team. And welcome, new subscribers!
As promised last week, this week’s article is a deeper dive into the issue of navigating communication as a trustee with more than one role in a school community. As a refresher, from last week:
Poor communication is a underlying issue
Often fueled by fear of conflict, this can blossom into a full-blown crisis because of a lack of skill/ability/board structures to resolve conflicts or productively/in a low stakes way surface concerns about the direction of the school or the performance of the head. This is also related to the commitment issue above because it would not surprise me if most board members “just don’t want to get into it” - they want to fulfill their obligation without stirring up trouble, etc. including reigning in fellow board members who may get too involved in the politics of school operations. And the major risk here is that these small concerns can bubble over at moments of crisis (“I suspected this was really a big problem!”) and suddenly the head is handed a cardboard box to clean out her office.
Two community roles? No problem! (Spoiler: it’s hard)
I have not found a board where the group openly discusses the challenges of managing their dual roles in the community - there is the board member/HOS role duality for the HOS and, for the vast majority of board members, there is the parent/board member or alum/board member duality. There are social relationships involved and you can’t neatly interact with the community with only one “hat” on - besides the fact, it’s part of the board’s role to be active community members. Yet people are generally given no training or practice in skills to assist them in what is a core aspect of trusteeship. (If your board is doing this, bravo and reach out to me. I’d love to hear how it works!)
And to the extent the tension involved in these two roles is ever discussed, it’s usually presented in terms of maintaining boundaries - the “lanes” of governance and operations - which in practice are difficult to finesse. And if a board member is struggling with this, he keeps it under wraps or only speaks about it in private with the board chair or other board members.
Why is it hard for trustees to balance (at least) two community roles?
This “why” goes back to the “authority effect.” Trustees are very powerful authority figures in school communities. And their power is intensified by the ambiguity of the role. Most people at a school know the board is “in charge.” They know the head is the “boss’ but that the board is the “big boss.” But they don’t really know what that means or how this works. Here is a non-comprehensive list of the vague ideas communities- and this includes both employees and the parents - can have about the board’s role:
The board is the head’s supervisor
The board have great influence in all school matters, large and small
Board members are there because they are wealthy and thus powerful and if they decide they want to change something, they can do it easily
Sometimes, with a new head, there can be a sense that the board and faculty/staff are an “us” and the new head is a “them”
At other times, this can be perceived as the reverse and the board is “protecting” the head, leading to murmurs inside the school community of if they only knew…
In short, there is a general perception that boards have extensive powers if they choose to exercise them. A trustee is at the pinnacle of authority in the school system.
The Authority Effect
When someone has positional authority, it gives words and actions an additional, significant impact. It’s hardwired; it’s a universal human experience that small children depend on grownups for our very well being. Some people are inclined to trust authority immediately and others to distrust until proven otherwise, and there is a whole spectrum in between. But you can’t avoid it.
And independent schools seem to be inclined to be vague about who’s the boss. There’s lots of conversations about being a “family.” (Schools use that language all the time but think about that - maybe not the healthiest organizational model?) There are flat, confusing org charts. There is often a fuzzy process for decision making. Faculty are often attracted to an independent school environment because of a more informal environment, with great scope for creativity and a more flexible structure that isn’t administering a check-the-box evaluation for employees every six months. Teachers can shut the door and reign in their individual classrooms. And we are proud of our independence and the freedom it gives us to be mission driven and meet children’s educational needs.
But the problem is, particularly as the world gets more and more confusing, the layers of ambiguity build. Uncertainty increases. Anxiety emerges. When the process for decision making is fuzzy and there is lots of room for interpretation about who is making a final decision, there is also room for people to make their own meaning - and that may well have nothing to do with the facts. There is speculation about the people perceived to be the closest to the person in authority, what their influence is and what’s on their agenda.
And the more people in authority pretend to be “just one of the gang,” the more it can feel confusing, disingenuous and, to use a term that has become frighteningly common, like gaslighting. The cognitive dissonance is no fun. We want things to “be the way they used to be” but the outdated informal systems aren’t cutting it.
Leaning into authority doesn’t have to rob people of their participation or right to have a voice. You can be clear about who is making a decision and how a decision is made. You can be clear as to how you will incorporate input and you can explain how you arrived at a decision. But to pretend everything really operates by consensus when it really doesn’t just feels bad - way worse than just being clear about who is in authority and how that authority works.
Using authority mindfully can create security, predictability and enable everyone else to focus on their roles.
Here’s a quote from one of my mentors, Dr. Kenneth Sole, from The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (Deutch, Coleman and Marcus, editors - Jossey-Bass, 2001) - I chose the text to bold.
I am well aware that people generally understand authority to be something of a two-edged sword, and I would often ask participants to list some of the problems and benefits associated with this powerful psychological reality. Typically, the problem list was far longer and more detailed than were the lists of positive aspects of the use of authority. Most people were far more aware of abuses of authority than they were of any potential benefits. It was no wonder that they thought some form of abdication to be the best course. My experience teaches me that when authority is conducted well, those of lesser authority feel safer. They become more secure. Their tolerance for ambiguity increases and with that they become much more creative. Certainly in any interactive setting the potential benefits of these changes can be significant.
You can see why, if you’re a parent and all of a sudden you are also at the top of the org chart in people’s minds, this will impact your interactions. You can’t just take off your trustee hat and stuff it in your pocket. People will bring their agendas to you, directly or indirectly, whether you want them or whether you really just want to sit and enjoy the winter concert or pick up your kid or attend reunion and hang out with your old friends.
Five Tips That Can Positively Impact Trustee-Community Communication
One: Talk about it!
Talk about it when the chair of governance or the board chair gets to the point of seriously discussing someone joining the board. Talk about it from time to time at board meetings or executive committee meetings. Talk about it with the head in the room sometimes. Normalize it. Sunshine really is the best disinfectant and the more you make this one aspect of board service routine, a hassle, something you can all deal with and maybe even bond over, the better you are able to deal with it.
Two: Create clear and productive communication channels for trustees
Create avenues for board members to bring up questions or concerns from things they hear in the community. You don’t want a board member calling the head every time they hear someone is upset the lettuce in the salad bar is always romaine, but if you can’t get through the pickup line or stop at the local market without having someone complain to you about the new math curriculum or whether or not that new faculty member is… a little odd? - and maybe you share some of those concerns yourself - it’s time to air them out and get some perspective.
What these channels are and how they work does not have to be uniform for all boards. I would advocate it be an avenue that has options - that’s it’s not just the board chair or head but that it widens out to include a few other board officers. Boards are social systems and the board chair is also a figure of authority - the authority effect holds here, too - and a board member may feel more comfortable reaching out to someone they see as more of a peer.
If you create a channel where these kinds of questions are treated as routine and reasonable to air out, you very well may avoid a trustee harboring doubts about a head’s leadership that fester until they erupt and even cause a crisis.
Three: Create a two minute, clear description of the board’s work
Come up with an equivalent of an “elevator pitch” that explains what the board does and what your role as a trustee is. So when people come up to you and start in on their complaint about the change of destination for the seven grade field trip, you can whip this out, redirect and then be an empathetic peer.
Involve the head and the director of comms in this project and have some fun with this. Keep it simple and relatively concrete. It doesn’t need to be word for word lockstep but the gist of the messaging should be consistent. “We support the school reaching its annual goals and we evaluate the head every year on reaching these goals.” “We focus on more long term thinking and risk management” “We’re future focused.” “We approve major policies and the annual budget.” Do some role plays, if your board is the type where this will not be too awkward - but on second thought, it might be a good board bonding experience to role play even if it would be awkward to role play at first!
Four: Be ready to redirect
Have some time at board meetings when you can do a quick review of what admins are responsible for what, so you can effectively redirect when someone complains to you about field trips or parking or preK admissions or placement in 8th grade math classes.
Five: “Warm but firm”
An old friend of mine who had a wonderful career as an educator and administrator once described his communication style this way and I thought - that’s it! You want to be a good listener and be empathetic but you can be these things as a good community member but then be gently firm in using your “elevator pitch” and redirecting. And then just stop talking for a minute - it’s amazing how well that works!
Two Bigger Picture Points
Clear Annual Institutional Goals
It will be easier to field serious complaints from community members if you can point to institutional goals that were created collaboratively, and with enthusiasm and engagement, between the board and the head. Hopefully these goals have been circulated and socialized widely and can be pointed to when someone complains that their pet project is getting no attention or a child’s favorite teacher says “everyone” is unhappy with an institutional change.
Clear Annual HOS Evaluation Process
And it will also be easier for everyone if there is a clear, annual head of school evaluation process that can be referenced. It doesn’t need to be a “360” (Note: And “360s” should be conducted by an outside facilitator, not done on a whim.) But trustees should be able to explain the process to an unhappy constituent so they are reassured you are in fact, mindling the institutional store. And the evaluation should be based on achievement of the head/board collaboratively-and-enthusiastically established goals for the year.
We here at Stony Creek Strategy can to work with you and your board on developing these skills - more information on Communications Skills for Trustees here - two 75 minute workshops that can be done remotely or on campus. Reach out for more info.
See you next week!
Julie
Check out October Happenings below - and contact me if you want to grab coffee when I’m in DC Oct 30-Nov 1.
Are You Prepared? - Oct 28th Pre-Election Zoom Meetup registration here - for comms folks and administrators For paid subscribers.
Starting a job search? We can help you write a personal statement.