Putting "Success" in Succession Planning
Part One: Food for thought from the Berkshire Hathaway transition
Welcome to the Talking Out of School newsletter! If you were forwarded this email, hit the subscribe button to get weekly insights into applied leadership for your independent school or nonprofit. Thank you for your support!
Here’s more information on program offerings from Julie Faulstich and Stony Creek Strategy. Contact us - always happy to chat!
When I searched “succession,” this image came up. Discuss amongst yourselves…
Photo by Erica Marsland Huynh on Unsplash
It’s Not A Head Transition; It’s A School Transition is now the most viewed article on Talking Out of School. And it totally surprised me. There are certain topics I’ve learned are perennially popular - anything around admissions and marketing communications always connects or anything about team building, for example. I wrote a piece about new framing around head transition back in early 2023 and it did fine but it wasn’t really notable. So I was not expecting this piece to connect the way it has and I hope it’s been helpful!
This piece and the ones I’ll publish soon on this topic engage in some perspective creation on succession planning and head transition, starting out with how private industry (at least in one instance) does it as a contrast. Subsequent parts will discuss how practicing good governance is an excellent foundation for when transition becomes relevant and how the head evaluation and contract rengotiation process should be a value neutral, professional interaction that promotes conversation about future school leadership. And how all the ways we customarily communicate around head transition can undermine progress by perpetuating a “superman/woman” idea of a leader, ratcheting up community expectations and possibly making new heads feel as if they’ve flopping around in shoes three sizes too big when in fact they are highly accomplished professionals ready to do the job. I get into that a little bit here, but there’s more to unpack. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it in all the communications around a head transition. (By contrast, here the is the press release on the Berkshire Hathaway leadership transition. I’m being playful and I laughed out loud when I read it after just reading a new head appointment announcement. I don’t advocate or expect schools go this route - but the cultures and norms here are interesting to consider.)
There’s a lot riding on schools having powerful leadership, more every day. Last week, I was on a call with a colleague when the news came out about Homeland Security cancelling Harvard’s ability to enroll international students. We expressed our shock. Then I was in the car a few days ago and another colleague forwarded the news about the pause processing student visas.
This is all ghastly, not just for those poor students whose lives are caught in a grudge match. But it’s also ghastly for every educational institution in the US that uses SEVIS and enrolls international students. Even if the courts continue to support Harvard against the government as the case winds its way through the legal system, what would YOU do if you were an international student or parent? Why hang around in a country willing to treat you like a pawn, where your university (or boarding school) can lose the ability to legally support your residence in the United States overnight? Why come to a country that has cancelled your kid’s visa interview?
It may be hard to turn your back on a Harvard degree but it’s probably much easier to decide to transfer from your US boarding school to one in Canada. And maybe the family’s whole goal of going to boarding school and continuing on to an American university gets rethought.
Given all the other decisions to make this spring, any school that welcomes international students is facing unwelcome new possibilities and difficult choices. Given the uncertainty of the economy, inflation, the labor market and on and on, being the leader is not only a different job than it used to be - it’s a different job from year to year. It’s not 1996 anymore; it’s not even 2015, the year I was appointed.
Berkshire Hathaway’s approach to transition
In a workshop recently, I pointed out the difference between Berkshire Hathways’ recent approach to leadership transition and independent schools’ approach. I am quite sure more people know the name and “brand” of Warren Buffett - “the oracle of Omaha” on all things investment - than know Berkshire Hathaway itself. Buffett actually is a superman among CEOs although an important piece of his reputation is his low key, “show me the results” style. So the announcement that Buffett was stepping down completely is big news and apparently the timing was a surprise.
Buffett, 94, put a plan in place in 2021. Enjoy this article from cfo.com: Warren Buffett Announces Timeline for New CEO. (Who knew there was a cfo.com? Not me!) It provides all the details, which he and the board put in place when he was a sprightly 90. Of course, this is not directly a roadmap for an independent school. The governance structure is quite different; Buffett was both CEO and chair of the board (yes, just like Logan Roy, for you Succession fans out there). The board chair position will go to his son.
But the food for thought is that Greg Abel, the new CEO, is a Berkshire Hathaway veteran. He understands the company culture and he is very familiar with all the headwinds and advantages he faces, including that of following one of the most successful CEOs in American history. And this is not an uncommon practice for the private sector.
Often there is a long transition trajectory, not just for CEO positions but for other key positions. A relative of mine is stepping away from a key position six months from now and has spent several years working with and training a successor from within the firm to so the functions of the role can be maintained with as little disruption as possible. A six month, part-time post-transition role for the person retiring is factored in as well. In his position, consistency and continuity is extremely important and the time and support is provided for this to take place.
In the larger culture of independent schools, there seems to be an unspoken agreement that, with the exception of a few schools who have gone a transparent, “promote from within” route, a marker of a school’s success and maturity is to conduct a national/international search where the exceptional nature of the candidates validates the outstanding nature of the school. Most of the time, this approach isn’t even a question. A head leaves and the board chooses a search firm. The search firm is either focused solely on independent schools or is a larger recruiter with an educational leadership practice among its many offerings. Sometimes there is an internal candidate, sometimes not. But they generally go through the same process as an external candidate.
School cultures are amazingly specific. And being able to operate within the culture, at least at some level, is part of a head’s ability to lead successfully. There may be more and less helpful aspects to the culture in terms of implementing change, but if the leader doesn’t have some sense of how things work - and often “how things work” is quite different than the stated values or brand rhetoric.
So it is interesting that in school and higher ed culture, the worldwide search where the institution’s strong reputation is reflected in who it can attract as candidates has developed as the way to operate. Harvard, notably, promotes from within. (And imagine a newbie at a place as vast and complex as Harvard trying to navigate the current situation versus Harvard long time provost Alan Garber, who was intended to be a placeholder president. Because even Harvard doesn’t have a process where they’re preparing the next president while the current president is in the seat.)
There are clearly cases to be made for each approach, sometimes promoting from within and sometimes seeking a fresh perspective, but my overall point here is that the independent school norm is pretty firmly entrenched and it takes a lot of effort to break away from that norm and try something different, even when “something different” might have much to recommend it. (This isn’t the space for a whole “history of how we got here” but I suspect the old way of operating, pre “big search done by a firm” lacked all transparency and as schools become more stressed in the 60s, it shifted and became an open call for qualified candidates. Pendulum swings… The big search became best practice.) And remember, trustees are busy volunteers and generally their plate is full with just all the other governance stuff that needs to happen - leading a head transition is a huge task and if you aren’t partnering with a major firm, it’s not just huge, it’s unwieldy and overwhelming.
So when boards embark on finding a successor head, the really big questions aren’t asked - what are, in fact, the most urgent issues facing the school? What skills are necessary to lead the school successfully at this time? Is there an internal person best suited for this work? Is our culture prepared to welcome an external leader and are we prepared to set up an external person for success? And even, is the “hiring a firm to do a nationwide search” thing everyone does worth the considerably investment? What are we getting in return for great expense? And is the expense any indicator of… anything?
And what about these HOS position descriptions?
I heard something interesting the other day: in passing, a consultant said, more or less, that we all know the position descriptions are unrealistic and not to be taken literally. We all know this is performative at a certain level, right?
And it’s true - the position descriptions are aspirational, unrealistic and sometimes when you know the school even a bit, a little ridiculous or even arrogant enough to cause eye rolls. I say this with love because in truth, schools, like people, are lumpy. They have great strengths and great flaws and DNA that isn’t aging well but stubbornly keeps trying to perpetuate itself. That’s what makes them interesting and unique. Candidates are left trying to figure out what’s “the real job” the board needs done underneath all this superlative rhetoric, the moments of realism or some scraps of data. (This is significantly easier once you’ve been a head.) Sometimes you get nothing to grab onto in the position description - it sounds as if it’s all blue skies and sun for years in all directions.
Sometimes I think this has happened because we’re in a conspiracy to float along on this fantasy idea of where schools are at in this confusing time, despite much evidence to the contrary. But I think it also may be easier for boards and schools to think the perfect person will be seduced into lifting the school up above its current moment rather than take a hard look at how the school is actually positioned. Because how the school is actually positioned may be a hard place indeed, particularly with current demographics in many areas of the country.
And another aspect of the current system is that, after we invest all this time and money in the triumphant nationwide search and we’ve selected the candidate, who, in theory, meets the criteria of this amazing person described in the position description, what next? How do the trustees and the senior leaders begin to help this person figure out which strengths they’ll need to lean on and what gaps in their own skills they need to close as they embark upon this terrifically complicated, ever changing job?
If the nationwide search, starting from zero, was the best way to go, why does Berkshire Hathaway follow such a different path? Is the assumption that school cultures are more interchangeable? Or that the stakes are lower since profits aren’t the issue? Or that the skills it takes to do these jobs, nearly fantastical in their description, are actually a dime a dozen?
Great people with tireless dedication to schools and kids have always been the secret sauce of independent schools. I am not, in fact, gloomy about the prospects for new heads because despite the fact the system is quite a head-scratcher when you start to examine it, so many talented people get promoted into the position each year and so many trustees and senior team members work hard to help them get acclimated.
But you can’t operate a system based on a predicted stream of exceptional people willing to give up their whole lives to a very difficult job. And I fear this system is getting more and more rickety. I’ve worked with a number of highly skilled and wonderful people in senior admin roles over the last few years and the majority come to the decision they don’t want to pursue headship. I always say to anyone who asks my opinion, “it was a really hard job. Kind of impossible in some ways. And if you have any inclination, you should do it.” We need great people in the head’s position - and those people need a better system around them.
Stay tuned for Part Two later in June: Tools for Good Governance Are Good For Succession Planning
Also in June from TOOS: A High-level Take on AI and Recommended Reading (subscriber benefit) suitable for boards and senior teams for Q4.
And if you’re interested in this topic, check out Greenwich Leadership Partner’s resource on leadership transition - lots of good stuff for boards!
Stony Creek Strategy featured services
If you’re thinking about a senior team retreat this summer or a workshop on a topic that will bring your faculty together on a topic of interest to all as you reconvene this fall- reach out to me! And this is also the time to be thinking about helpful governance topics for a fall board retreat or online webinar to support board member training.
We are currently enrolling our third cohort for Finding and Leaning Into Your Authentic Authority for women leaders. We’ve had two wonderful groups of student-facing female senior administrators and we can’t wait to work with you! More information here and hit reply on this email or reach out to me at jfaulstich@stonycreekstrategy.com if you’re interested!