Wonder Twin powers activate!” If you are a fan of DC Comics’ Justice League, you might be thinking “school of fish” or “fleet of helicopters.” If you need an old-school Saturday morning cartoon primer, the Wonder Twins could transform from their human form by lifting their hands, putting their rings together, igniting a dramatic purple flash, and joining forces to become something greater than themselves.In the real world, most people don’t believe in a “Wonder Twins” mindset when it comes to the board chair role. The idea of having two board chairs who work together in the same function isn’t popular, and it’s not widely adopted or recommended. Governance consultants and school leaders generally discourage this model because the balance of power isn’t seen as equal, or potential conflict could cause more challenges. When I started as head of school at Dedham Country Day School (MA) in July 2016 and was working with the current board chair to find the next board leader, we were aware of the prevailing mentality about dual board chairs. But we had identified two people who were just right for the next phase of the school’s leadership. They both knew the school well, were strategic thinkers, and had the trust and respect of the board and community. However, neither of them had the time to say “yes” to a full-time commitment. We started to explore whether these two individuals, together, could do the job.
All board chairs, alone or in pairs, are something akin to superheroes. They activate our boards, support our work as heads of school, and help provide a vision for the future. Having the right people, even if they are sharing the responsibilities part time, is the most crucial factor in determining how well the role works. At a time when schools are rethinking everything from methodologies for instruction to financial models, we need to extend some of this flexible thinking to revitalize such sacred structures of leadership as the lone board chair.
Exploration Mode
As we explored the dual board chair model, I was struck by how many people I consulted with focused on what could go wrong. They made it seem as if I was going to play a game of doubles tennis alone. They told me I’d be outnumbered and suggested that the balance of power in the school would tip in negative ways toward the board. Others already lamented my lost time, anticipating that communicating with two chairs would double my workload. And another camp raised a flag about conflict—they predicted more diverse views and less consensus. Would this structure be confusing to our board members? Would it create a vacuum of power at the top? Would it lead trustees to assert leadership in negative ways?Having these conversations was a useful exercise in fully thinking through the potential challenges and allowed me to identify concerns at the outset. But I also got excited about the possibilities. All of our schools have boards whose members have different perspectives and strengths, and we gain the benefits of these multiple views. One does not need to have co-board chairs to live the adage that “two heads are better than one.” At the same time, having additional views and perspectives as part of that key leadership combination—the board leader role and the head of school role—has the potential to double the advantage.
Rob Evans, a psychologist and author of The Human Side of School Change: Reform, Resistance, and the Real-Life Problems of Innovation, once said boards were looking for heads of school who were like “God on a good day.” This could be said about board chairs as well since the role calls on them to be strategic, organized, forward-looking, caretaking, connected, and energizing—and to do it all as a volunteer. As I considered using a different model, I came to believe that two board chairs would bring a baseline of these traits and abilities, and eventually, I’d see how their particular strengths would play out. We’d be able to use each board chair for different needs at different times, tapping the strongest parts of their skill sets to meet the needs of the board and the school.
Even more than the personal compatibility between these two particular chairs, the way their skills, temperaments, and abilities would complement each other was the key to bringing vitality to the model. When one tipped toward the practical perspective, the other would add a strategic one. When one was nurturing and focused on the relationships, the other would be task-oriented and moved our goals forward. One loved public speaking, and the other was magic in one-on-one conversations. They didn’t always play the same role, but having two board chairs would increase the likelihood that the board chair role was acting with a broad range of skills and perspectives. This would help me widen my perspective time and time again.
Many schools have volunteers who have the skill set to fill the board chair role. However, in our volatile times, some volunteers hesitate to take on the responsibility of the board chair role; they fear the workload in the case of economic crisis, lawsuit, or other crisis. Also, demographic trends, including two-earner households, for example, has made it challenging to find volunteers who can meet the time demands of the role. Parents and board members are busy, but they also want to give back to our schools. I saw another potential benefit of this model early on: Two people could play a significant leadership role with fewer hours.
And because you have two people who feel a deep responsibility to the board and the school, and because that feeling often leads to philanthropic action, schools that use this model can potentially increase their amount of financial support. In many cases, a board chair is the lead giver on the board, and with this model, a school could potentially have two major donors feeling a high degree of ownership for the school’s success. Similarly, a chair who can provide thought leadership to the school—but no significant financial support—may help offer time and talent within a pairing that is still able to offer philanthropic support.
Model in Motion
My biggest concern with this model was that working with one more person at this level would increase my workload as head of school. During the 2017–2018 school year, I worked with two board chairs. To address my concern from the beginning of our work together, we established that the co-chairs would communicate with each other. Communicating with one of them would be as if I were talking with both of them. If I had a conversation with one of them or if they attended a committee meeting, they’d close the loop with each other. This was more work for them, but it still resulted in less work than if they’d served in the role solo. The three of us quickly built a relationship of trust—every time I asked one of them if they were fully aware of a situation at school or a concern raised in a committee meeting that I had communicated with one of them, the other chair had already filled them in.At the beginning of the school year, the chairs decided who would attend which committee meetings and school events, and their obligation to each other allowed them to follow through on the plan, which they shared with board members. Both board co-chairs participated in all of the board meetings and a few key school events but shared the rest of their duties. Because they were knowledgeable about what was happening across the full board, they did not need to be present at every event.
In the beginning, some board members worried that with two board chairs they’d feel less cohesive and that our vision might be less clear. But as the year went on, trustees shared positive feedback about the structure. They noticed the increased energy and the strong feeling of connection. The different interests and strengths of our co-board chairs allowed for each of the 19 board members to connect well to one chair or the other. Increasing social bandwidth, one chair may be inclined to talk about parenting, media, arts, and community events. Although a single board chair could do the same, two people provide a greater range of opportunities.
While the board chairs got to know the trustees, the chairs and I also got to know each other’s full lives, including our families and our interests. By doing so, we established norms of openness that allowed us to be honest with each other, and we were better able to stay aligned and avoid conflicts. If a difference of opinion arose about a board vote or other matter, we’d typically come to a consensus behind the scenes. In front of the board, we represented one view and a single perspective on several topics, despite any slight nuances or differences in our individual views. In one particular case that I’ll keep vague in the spirit of board confidentiality, I remember thinking that I could see the arguments from both perspectives, and they embodied the conflict I felt myself. I think my ability to set a strong direction minimized any negative impact from the times when we were on different spots on a spectrum. Another time, in front of the board, one chair was going to abandon a board vote until we could resolve some details, and the other said, “Wait, I think we can get this done.” It was good for the board to see the variation in our views, but we made it a point to stay consistent on the most important things, such as strategic planning versus adding operations work when it wasn’t the right time.
Power of Two
During this term, I felt the power of having two close allies, who knew my work and the demands of my position, with whom I could strategize. Meanwhile, I recognize that it’s hard work volunteering as a single board chair. Similar to the head of school role, it can be solitary at times, but heads have many opportunities to connect with other heads. In a board chair role, the same structures aren’t in place. So sharing the role adds value by providing a built-in sounding board and needed support—and, believe it or not, more fun.The dual chair roles don’t need to be a model for every round of board leadership, and it’s easy enough to shift back to a traditional structure if you have the right person to serve. But the idea that the dual role is fraught with potential problems and that it should not be done is an outdated way of thinking. A board chair who is not strategic or into operations, or who does not support the vision of the head, is a problem whether there are one or two holding that view. The dual role does not make it more likely that problems occur; arguably, it makes it less likely since board chairs have the utmost intention of supporting the school—and two board chairs can support each other in meeting this goal. Knowing about this model can challenge schools to think about the needed skill set and focus on people and combined skill sets in a way that opens up the possibilities.
These times require a nimble approach to everything—including board leadership—and it is worth adding this model to the toolkit. Perhaps your school will decide it is time to activate your own Wonder Twins. As the power of strong leadership energizes our school communities, the possibilities for the forms it will take—and the way it will serve our students—are boundless.
