How long does it take to become an effective board chair at an independent school? One year is certainly not enough. A typical two- or three-year term provides enough time in office to learn the role and start making progress in some critical area, but not enough time to develop any semblance of mastery. Then the chair’s term is over and the board goes through another leadership transition. This churning process can hinder the board’s effectiveness, weaken the school, and exhaust the head.
Many independent school leaders that I encounter have started to question that pattern. They ask, “What is the ideal practice for board chair tenure? Do you recommend two- or three-year terms? How about renewing for a second term?” My response examines the issue from three distinct angles.
Renewable Terms for Board Chairs
First, let’s study the board tenure models offered by successful schools. Two schools of recognized excellence in Colorado have benefitted in recent years from having a board chair serve for six years. In both cases the partnership between school head and board chair was very strong, and their “dance of leadership” was quite nimble in response to various challenges and opportunities facing the school.
Each school made dramatic progress in those six years. One of them achieved record growth in its endowment while sustaining full enrollment in a competitive market during a recession. The other school greatly enhanced its mission-market alignment through effective strategic planning and the introduction of key program improvements to strengthen student retention. All constituencies recognized that leadership continuity in the board chair and head of school roles helped make these achievements possible.
Both of those schools have renewable three-year terms for board chairs. When the partnership between head and board chair works well, the board chair can sign on for a second term. During that time, the chair’s work often becomes more rewarding and less burdensome, because the formative effort of building leadership relationships and routines is out of the way. The second term often yields dramatic progress for the school.
There are some drawbacks to renewable three-year terms. Recruiting board chairs can be tough if the Committee on Trustees expects the chair to renew for a second term, since it may not be feasible for him or her to devote six years to such a demanding role. Conversely, the chair and head sometimes become such a good team that they want to extend the partnership beyond two terms, even when the school might benefit from a change. Hence, some bylaws set a limit of two successive terms for the board chair. With three-year terms, the Committee on Trustees also has to work extra hard on recruiting a board chair who is a good match for the head (but it should do that anyway).
Two-year renewable terms offer a popular alternative. The shorter initial time commitment makes recruiting board chairs a little easier. NAIS President Pat Bassett points out that a two-year term allows for a “graceful separation” if the head/chair partnership isn’t working. Yet, if the head and chair make a good team, the opportunity to renew terms allows the school to benefit from leadership continuity. Schools with a history of becoming too ingrown can certainly limit the number of two-year terms. However, Bassett says that many schools thrive on renewable two-year terms without limit.
Still, there are drawbacks with two-year terms. Most chairs say it takes at least a year to learn the role and become effective. That means little significant progress takes place in the first year. The second year can be productive, but some projects started that year — such as a board development initiative — may go unfinished if the chair does not renew for a second term. Sometimes the board chair also goes from being a novice in year one to a lame duck in year two, with a lot of valuable expertise and political capital invested in recruiting the next chair. A two-year turnaround pattern in the board chair position often squanders the energy of school leaders.
Strategic planning, capital campaigns, and effective board development all require leadership continuity for more than a year. Changing leadership before the project is completed can easily result in losing important momentum or risk getting stuck. And from what I’ve seen, school boards get stuck with alarming frequency, often because their leadership doesn’t have enough time to gain necessary traction. Renewable terms for board chairs help provide the leadership continuity that schools need to make progress.
Board Chair Tenure and Head Longevity
A second vantage point involves the relationship between board chair continuity and head tenure. We know that strategic progress for schools often depends on having long tenure in the headship. NAIS reports that most headships now last seven to thirteen years. In contrast, schools with frequent changes in the headship — every two or three years — generally run into serious difficulties. School improvement usually flounders with frequent head transitions.
This observation raises the question, “What practices regarding board chair tenure are most likely to support longevity in the headship?” The first year with a new board chair requires extra work for a school head. Significant time and energy must be devoted to learning how to work with the board chair. It takes a while to establish trust and effective communication routines. The head must invest that time to ensure proper separation between the board’s strategic leadership and the head’s management of daily operations.
Time spent by the head to build the working relationship with a new board chair comes at the expense of time he or she would otherwise spend on routine school management and making improvements to enhance mission fulfillment. For that reason, effective boards strive to minimize the frequency of turnover in both of the school’s top leadership positions.
The value of leadership continuity has proven itself time and again among independent schools. No wonder NAIS has long encouraged school leaders to regard the relationship between the head and board chair as a critical partnership, characterized by mutual trust, reciprocity, honest feedback, and harmonious collaboration (see NAIS Trustee Handbook by Mary DeKuyper). As with any other partnership, mutual consent and commitment are vitally important. Therefore, most school governance consultants agree that the head of school should play a major role in recruiting and selecting a new board chair. They really have to choose each other.
Supervision and Accountability
A third perspective on this topic involves checks and balances. The board’s fiduciary responsibility (holding the school in trust for future generations) requires that it have a supervisory relationship with the head of school. Some trustees worry that long tenure in the headship may reduce the board’s authority and its capacity to provide effective supervision. A strong partnership between the board chair and head can intensify that concern. From this point of view, each board chair transition provides an opportunity for renewing the supervisory relationship so that it doesn’t become too comfortable.
Accountability for the head is a good thing, but changing the board chair every year or two is not the best way to serve that purpose. In fact, that approach can be counterproductive for the reasons described above. A better approach involves establishing routine practices such as setting goals for the head’s work, evaluating performance, reporting progress to the board, ensuring fiscal oversight, and monitoring compliance with board policies.
Good practices in each of these areas provide a level of transparency and accountability that keeps the head on his or her toes. Such practices help provide effective supervision and support for the head, without the high costs associated with frequent board chair turnover. Chief among those costs is the risk of having a “revolving-door headship” by making the position unsustainable.
What is the ideal practice for board chair tenure? A renewable two-year term can provide sufficient continuity, if that second term becomes the norm. However, two-year terms have the inherent weakness of making it too easy for a board chair to serve only one term. To use a track analogy, a sprinter’s outlook may not serve the school well when it really needs a distance runner in that key role. If the board structure allows for short terms in the chair position, the Committee on Trustees has to work extra hard on recruitment and board development to establish a culture that values and supports leadership continuity.
The Goldilocks solution, the just-right approach to board chair tenure, includes:
• renewable three-year terms;
• effective provisions for transparency and accountability; and
• strong participation of the head in board chair recruitment and selection.
Assuming it takes one year to learn the board chair role, a three-year tenure gives the school at least two years of experienced board leadership, and maybe more if the chair serves a second term. Three years is a reasonable expectation for the chair’s initial commitment. Then perhaps that term can be extended. Ideally, the board chair and head will form a good partnership, settle into a sustainable routine, and see enough progress that a second term seems manageable and appealing to both of them.
Mastering the art of board leadership does make the job easier, but it takes time. A renewable three-year term for the chair provides the ideal circumstances for nurturing leadership continuity and strengthening a school.