Summary findings based on research by:
Jessica “Jess” Adams, Head of Upper School, The Emery/Weiner School, Texas
Deborah “Daisy” Pellant, Head of School, The International School Bangkok, Thailand
This study was completed as a capstone project for the Peabody College of Education and Human Development at Vanderbilt University in partnership with the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS).
Independent school headship is structurally unique, combining full executive authority with the absence of an internal organizational peer. Once appointed, a head becomes the most senior authority in the institution, often without opportunities for in-house peer modeling, ongoing feedback, or sustained mentorship. Relatively little is known about how first-time heads experience the transition into the role or how existing supports align with their developmental needs during the earliest years of headship.
As they navigate this transition, first-time heads operate under heightened visibility, complex stakeholder expectations, and significant emotional demands, while simultaneously constructing a new professional identity. Understanding how leaders experience this developmental period is essential for informing systems of preparation, onboarding, mentoring, and governance support that extend beyond technical leadership competencies to address the realities of learning the role in practice.
This capstone study examines the lived experiences of first-time heads of school during their first five years of leadership. This study seeks to address how first-time heads learn, adapt, and develop once they are in the headship role.
The researchers explored three interrelated questions:
- How do independent school heads describe the challenges and supports that shape their experiences during their first five years of headship?
- In what ways do professional background and aspects of personal identity shape heads’ experiences of participation, support, and leadership during their first five years of headship?
- What organizational, cultural, and systemic conditions do heads identify as enabling or constraining their effectiveness, participation, and sustainability during their first five years of headship?
Research Design and Methodology
Seven heads of school, each within their first five years of leadership, participated in semi-structured interviews of 60 to 90 minutes. Participants were recruited in partnership with NAIS and through professional networks, purposefully capturing a range of institutional contexts and professional pathways into headship. Their schools varied in size, mission, governance structure, location, and organizational context.
Transcripts were analyzed through two iterative, collaborative cycles of coding.
Generative AI was used only after independent first-cycle coding was complete and solely to support the organization of codes and researcher reflection. It was not used to generate findings. Final coding decisions, thematic development, and interpretation remained the responsibility of the researchers.
Findings
Five interconnected themes emerged from the data.
- Preparation cannot substitute for lived experience. Prior mentorship, expanding leadership roles, and formal programs provided a valuable foundation but could not substitute for learning that occurs only by occupying the role itself.
Despite varied preparation experiences, participants overwhelmingly concluded that no amount of preparation fully prepared them for the realities of becoming a head of school. These were leaders who, by most conventional measures, had been exceptionally well prepared. While participants did not criticize formal preparation programs or previous leadership experiences, they distinguished between learning about headship and actually inhabiting the role. Observing board meetings, participating in strategic planning, or supervising faculty provided valuable preparation, but participants consistently described a fundamental shift once they carried the ultimate responsibility for organizational decisions.
Participants’ descriptions suggest that readiness for headship cannot be understood as a destination achieved before assuming the position. Instead, preparation functioned as an important foundation on which the deeper learning occurred through lived experience. Becoming a head of school required participants to construct new understandings of leadership through daily participation in the work itself, often under conditions of uncertainty, heightened visibility, and considerable responsibility.
These findings suggest that preparation is necessary but inherently incomplete. Leadership development continued long after participants accepted their first headship, with experience itself becoming the most influential teacher.
- Isolation is a defining characteristic of headship. An unanticipated, defining feature of headship was the isolation heads experienced, resulting from the disappearance of the feedback and shared accountability leaders relied on in earlier roles.
While participants entered headship expecting increased responsibility, few anticipated the profound sense of isolation that accompanied the role. Across interviews, participants consistently described isolation as one of the defining characteristics of early headship. It’s important to note that this isolation did not reflect a lack of relationships or community. Rather, participants described a unique form of professional isolation created by occupying the organization’s highest leadership position.
Although meaningful relationships mitigated many of the effects of isolation, participants reported that accepting ultimate organizational responsibility fundamentally altered the experience of leadership itself.
Together, the first two themes reveal an important paradox: Participants entered headship believing they were well prepared, only to discover that the most significant lessons emerged through lived experience. At the same time, they learned those lessons while occupying the most professionally isolating position within their organization. These experiences established the developmental context within which participants began reconstructing their identity as head of school.
- Organizational context differs among schools. The governance, financial health, and culture each leader experienced shaped the pace and shape of their development so that no two first headships unfolded alike.
Participants described entering organizations with histories, cultures, and institutional realities that profoundly influenced their transition into leadership. While each participant assumed the same formal role of head of school, the work they encountered varied considerably depending on the circumstances of the school they inherited.
Across interviews, participants emphasized that organizational context actively shaped the work of becoming a head of school. Context was not just the backdrop for their leadership. Financial conditions, governance structures, leadership teams, organizational culture, accreditation status, enrollment pressures, and institutional history all influenced how participants experienced the transition into executive leadership.
Taken together, these findings suggest that the effectiveness and sustainability of early-career heads of school cannot be understood independently of the organizations they lead. Participants described leadership as an interaction between the individual and the institution, with organizational conditions either enabling or constraining opportunities for learning, relationship-building, and long-term success.
- Mentorship plays a vital role. Trusted mentors, executive coaches, and peer networks were essential for interpreting the growing complexity of the role and sustaining leaders through uncertainty.
Across interviews, participants repeatedly returned to the people who helped them become leaders. Participants emphasized that trusted mentors, sponsors, and experienced heads of school provided forms of learning that could not be replicated through coursework or professional development.
Collectively, participants described mentorship as one of the most significant supports contributing to leadership development and sustainability. Mentors opened doors, created opportunities for participation, challenged assumptions, offered affirmation during periods of doubt, and helped participants construct meaning from experiences that otherwise might have felt overwhelming. Participants’ narratives suggest that while their mentors could not eliminate the inherent challenges of headship, trusted relationships substantially influenced how leaders experienced and navigated those challenges.
Notably, participants who lacked consistent mentoring relationships often described greater uncertainty during their transition. Several contrasted previous leadership positions, where supervisors and experienced administrators provided regular feedback, with headship, where such developmental relationships were less readily available. The absence of trusted mentors frequently intensified the isolation of the role.
- Headship redefines the leader’s identity. Becoming a head of school was an ongoing process of renegotiating authenticity, authority, and visibility, rather than simply adopting a new title.
Perhaps the most profound finding to emerge from the interviews concerned the transformation of participants’ professional identity. Participants consistently described becoming a head of school as an ongoing process of redefining who they were as leaders. It was much more than just accepting a new position and title and assuming additional responsibilities.
Notably, identity reconstruction did not happen only in participants’ first months in the role. Instead, it unfolded continuously as participants encountered new organizational challenges, difficult decisions, changing relationships, and increasing confidence in their own judgment. Becoming a head of school was experienced as an ongoing developmental process.
Together, the themes of mentorship and identity reconstruction reveal that early headship is fundamentally relational. Participants developed confidence through interactions with trusted mentors, colleagues, boards, and leadership teams. At the same time, those relationships continually shaped participants’ evolving understandings of themselves as leaders. Professional identity emerged from learning to inhabit the role of head of school in ways that remained authentic while meeting the complex demands of executive leadership.
Conclusion
Viewed collectively, participants’ narratives describe becoming a head of school as a profound developmental transition. Preparation provided an essential foundation, but lived experience was the primary teacher. While mentorship offered important guidance and reassurance, participants ultimately discovered that many aspects of leadership could be understood only through personal responsibility and experience. Organizational context shaped every transition, requiring leaders to adapt to the unique culture, history, governance, and challenges of their school. Throughout this process, participants continually reconstructed their professional identity as they learned to balance authenticity with authority, collaboration with decisiveness, and confidence with humility.
The shared essence of early headship is therefore one of continual becoming. Participants did not assume the position as fully formed heads of school. Instead, they grew into the role through participation, reflection, relationships, and experience. Becoming a head of school emerged as an ongoing developmental process of learning, adaptation, and identity development within the complex community of an independent school.
These themes overlapped throughout participants’ narratives. Participants frequently described experiences that simultaneously reflected preparation, mentorship, organizational context, and identity development, illustrating the interconnected nature of leadership transition. Collectively, the findings suggest that becoming a head of school is a developmental process in which leaders continually reconstruct their understanding of themselves, their organizations, and their work through lived participation in the role.
Recommendations
The study offers four recommendations for boards of trustees, search committees, and aspiring heads:
- Reconceptualize early headship as a distinct developmental stage. Although participants entered the position with extensive leadership experience, they emphasized that executive leadership could be learned only by occupying the role. Viewing the first five years as distinct helps new heads understand uncertainty and identity renegotiation as expected aspects of becoming a head of school, rather than as signs of inadequacy.
- Seek out programming around four interconnected developmental domains:
- Developing as a head of school
- Leading within an organizational context
- Building developmental relationships
- Sustaining leadership
Early headship did not follow a linear progression. Participants reported navigating multiple developmental domains simultaneously as they experienced the broader practice of headship while also learning to lead within the unique organizational context of their school.
- Extend mentoring and executive coaching across the full first five years of headship. The findings of this study suggest that the greatest value of mentoring and coaching is their capacity to help heads of school interpret increasingly complex leadership experiences, normalize the uncertainty inherent in executive leadership, strengthen board–head partnerships, construct professional identity, and make sense of the developmental challenges of early headship.
- Position reflection as an essential leadership practice. Participants repeatedly described reflection as one of the most important mechanisms for learning. Conversations with mentors, executive coaches, and trusted peers helped them interpret unfamiliar situations, make sense of difficult decisions, reconstruct their professional identities, and sustain themselves through the challenges of early headship. Reflection should serve as a central component of leadership development rather than remaining an informal byproduct of networking or coaching.