ECIS Research: Leadership Development

INTELLIGENCE UNIT

FRAMING PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP MAY 2016

ECIS Leadership Development Report | May 2016

LEADERSHIP PIPELINE AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT May 2016

ECIS worked with a prominent leadership recruitment agency to pilot a survey whose goal was to identify parameters of the leadership pipeline that could be used to inform the agency where to invest its time, energy, and resources when leading an executive search process. Those surveyed were identified by ECIS and the recruitment agency as “senior leadership team members,” and placement data from the past 3 years were utilised to establish a contact list. The response rate was 30%, above industry average.

Q1: WHAT ROLES DO ASPIRING LEADERS FULFIL IN THEIR SCHOOLS? In their current schools, 25% of respondents identified that they were Deputy Head/Head of Middle School, 12.5% were Head of Middle, another 12.5% were Head of Secondary, and the remaining 50% represented a mixture of positions and titles that would incorporate the following: business manager, head of primary, director of admission, director of advancement, or director of curriculum (or similar titles).

DEPUTY / ASSISTANT HEAD OF MIDDLE

HEAD OF MIDDLE

HEAD OF SECONDARY

OTHER

37%

12.50%

12.50%

50%

Q2: WHERE ARE THESE ASPIRING LEADERS, CURRENTLY? Respondents identified their current schools as being in the following countries: Belgium (12.5%), Bhutan (12.5%), China (50%), The Netherlands (12.5%), and USA (12.5%). Even this small-by-design sample size shows geographic spread among Western Europe, Western Asia (also known as the Middle East), East Asia, and Northern America, categories identified by ISC Research.

BELGIUM

BHUTAN

CHINA

THE NETHERLANDS

USA

12.5%

12.5%

50%

12.5%

12.5%

1

ECIS Leadership Development Report | May 2016

Q3: HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN IN THEIR CURRENT ROLES? Aspiring leaders, as the chart below indicates, are split into two tranches of “time in post,” with 63% in post for 0 to 2 years and 37% in post for 3 to 5 years.

63%

37%

0%

0%

0-2 YEARS

3-5 YEARS

6-8 YEARS

8+

Q4: ARE YOU INTERESTED IN LEADING AN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL? Seventy-five per cent (75%) of those surveyed indicated that they were interested in leading an international school, whilst 25% identified as ‘not interested.’

75%

25%

YES

NO

Q5: IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN LEADING A SCHOOL, WHAT IS YOUR TIME HORIZON FOR LANDING THAT FIRST HEADSHIP? Of those who self-identified as interested in leading a school, 62.5% said that they were looking to land that first headship within the next two years. A further 25% shared that their time horizon would be 3 to 5 years, whilst 12.5% stated that their first headship was more than 5 years out.

62.5%

25%

12.5%

NEXT 2 YEARS

3-5 YEARS

> 5 YEARS

2

ECIS Leadership Development Report | May 2016

Q6: WHAT WOULD BE YOUR DESIRED LOCATION FOR THAT FIRST HEADSHIP, WHEN IT COMES TO GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS OF THE WORLD? Respondents were presented with 22 sub-regions, as identified by ISC Research, and asked to rank their top five desired areas for their first headship posting. A score of 1 would equate to the most desirable region, whereas a score of 5 would indicate the least desirable region. Respondents identified and ranked sixteen sub-regions, leaving six that were not identified or ranked: Western Asia, South America, Caribbean, Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia.

EASTERN ASIA

SOUTH EASTERN ASIA

1

1

SOUTHERN ASIA

2

<

1.8

1.5 NORTHERN EUROPE

MOST DESIRABLE

SOUTHERN EUROPE

CENTRAL ASIA

2

MIDDLE AFRICA

LEAST DESIRABLE

2

EASTERN AFRICA

2.5

CENTRAL AMERICA

3 WESTERN EUROPE

3.3

NORTHERN AFRICA

3

NORTHERN AMERICA

EASTERN EUROPE

3.3

3.5 SOUTHERN AFRICA

4

AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND

4

WESTERN AFRICA

5

Q7: IN YOUR CURRENT SCHOOL, WHAT ARE THE MOST PRESSING STRATEGIC PRIORITIES? Respondents were asked to identify from a list of common strategic priorities, including the ability to list “other” priorities, which ones they believe to be drivers in their current schools. Interestingly, there was not one single response to this question. This lack of response makes us wonder whether schools are making clear their strategic priorities, even at the senior leadership team level. Additionally, what might this absence suggest about the governance level of the school, i.e. the board’s responsibility toward the sustainability of the school?

3

ECIS Leadership Development Report | May 2016

Q8: ARE THE RIGHT CAPABILITIES IN PLACE TO DELIVER ON MEETING YOUR SCHOOL’S STRATEGY? Asked to identify whether the entire senior leadership team, including the head, possessed the right capabilities to deliver on strategy, 12.5% of respondents indicated “definitely yes” and 50% said “somewhat yes,” whilst 12.5% were “unsure,” 25% indicated “somewhat no,” and 0% reported “definitely no.” To put it another way, the view is that almost two-thirds believe that those on the leadership team possess the capabilities to deliver on strategy, whereas almost one-third are unsure as to whether these capabilities are in place.

12.5%

50%

DEFINITELY

SOMEWHAT

YES

YES

12.5% UNSURE

25%

0%

SOMEWHAT

DEFINITELY

NO

NO

Q9: DOES THE SENIOR LEADERSHIP TEAM POSSESS THE EFFECTIVE BEHAVIOURS NEEDED TO DELIVER ON YOUR SCHOOL’S STRATEGY? Perhaps the most surprising observation of this survey was respondents’ views on whether the senior leadership team, in contrast to possessing the aforementioned question regarding the capabilities of delivering on strategy, possessed the effective behaviours for delivering on strategy. The results are the mirror opposite of the capabilities question, with 0% for “definitely yes,” 25% for “somewhat yes,” 12.5% for “unsure,” 50% for “somewhat no,” and 12.5% for “definitely no.”

The explicit divergence between this question and that which immediately precedes it suggests a possible significant leadership issue: whilst the members of the senior leadership team are perceived as possessing the individual capabilities to deliver on strategy, two-thirds (62.5%) of respondents feel that the team does not exhibit the effective behaviours to deliver on it. We are curious to know whether this disconnect, from a small sample size in a pilot survey, would be exhibited in a larger sample size. It will remain an area of specific interest in future iterations of this survey. Irrespective of the sample size, that the responses to these two questions are mirror opposites suggests that, as a sector, we need to understand it better so that we might provide appropriate leadership development that responds to it.

0%

25%

12.5%

50%

12.5%

DEFINITELY

SOMEWHAT

UNSURE

SOMEWHAT

DEFINITELY

YES

YES

4

NO

NO

ECIS Leadership Development Report | May 2016

Q10: WHO IS ACTIVE AT DRIVING CHANGE IN YOUR SCHOOL? Respondents were asked to identify how active specific leadership groups in their schools were, when it comes to driving change. The groups comprised heads, senior leaders, middle leaders, and team leaders (e.g. grade-level or area coordinators).

HEAD OF SCHOOL

25%

12.50%

50%

0%

12.50%

VERY INACTIVE

SOMEWHAT INACTIVE

UNSURE

SOMEWHAT ACTIVE

VERY ACTIVE

0%

37.50%

25%

25%

12.50%

VERY INACTIVE

SOMEWHAT INACTIVE

UNSURE

SOMEWHAT ACTIVE

VERY ACTIVE

SENIOR LEADERS

It is interesting to compare heads and leadership team members side-by-side. Respondents indicated that heads do not have a clear role in driving change at their schools, with 50% stating “unsure,” and a further 37.5% viewing heads as either somewhat or very inactive. In what is certainly an interesting selfevaluation, 25% of respondents, who are senior leadership team members themselves, indicated that are “unsure” about their role in driving change, with a notable 37.5% reporting as “very inactive.” Just over one-third, or 37.5%, identified as being somewhat or very active in driving change. In other words, two-thirds of respondents are, at best, ambivalent drivers of change, yet 87.5% of all respondents are looking to land their first headship over the next five years. To us, this insight suggests a remarkable disconnect between the demands of the job and the preparation of future leaders for it.

The next two groups are also of interest, in terms of driving change.

MIDDLE LEADERS

12.50%

0%

25%

50%

12.50%

VERY INACTIVE

SOMEWHAT INACTIVE

UNSURE

SOMEWHAT ACTIVE

VERY ACTIVE

YES

YES

UNSURE

NO

TEAM LEADERS (GRADE LEVEL OR SIMILAR)

0%

25%

25%

50%

0%

VERY INACTIVE

SOMEWHAT INACTIVE

UNSURE

SOMEWHAT ACTIVE

VERY ACTIVE

5

NO

ECIS Leadership Development Report | May 2016

Even a cursory visual comparison will show a higher degree of activity when it comes to middle leaders and team leaders driving change in schools. For middle leaders, 62.5% of respondents indicated that these individuals are either somewhat or very active in driving change, with 25% indicating a lack of clarity around their change role and 12.5% stating that middle leaders are very inactive in this realm. In partial alignment with this perspective are the team leaders, identified by 50% of respondents as being “somewhat active”, with 25% “unsure” about team leaders’ work in this realm, and another 25% stating that team leaders are “somewhat inactive” in this realm.

Q11: WHAT ARE THE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES IN YOUR SCHOOL? Respondents were asked to rank items from the following list, with a minimum selection of five items:

•

Becoming more purpose and values-driven

•

Driving engagement

•

Driving culture change

•

Developing leaders to drive strategic change

•

Diversifying the leadership pipeline (e.g. new skills, new regions, specific levels)

•

Filling gaps in your leadership pipeline (e.g. diverse skill sets, demographics, generations)

•

Accelerating time to attain operational results

•

Operational results (e.g. exam scores, university placement, debt reduction)

•

Other (please specify)

The following chart shows how respondents identified the frequency of these priorities in their schools, with the lower numbers occurring less frequently, and the higher numbers occurring most frequently.

The most frequently-cited leadership development priority was to fill gaps in the school’s leadership pipeline (e.g., demographics, skill set, generation) at 5.2, with the next two categories being accelerating time to results and becoming more moral purpose and values driven, both at 4.8. Slightly behind them was the area of operational results at 4.6. The remaining items were noticeably lower in significance, though ‘driving culture change’ is an interesting low score in our view, given how much the leadership literature and existing leadership development programmes rely on this area of preparation for the job.

6

ECIS Leadership Development Report | May 2016

4.8

4.8

4.6

BECOME MORE PURPOSE AND VALUES DRIVEN

ACCELERATING TIME TO OBTAIN OPERATIONAL RESULTS

OPERATIONAL RESULTS (E.G. EXAM SCORES, UNIVERSITY PLACEMENT, DEBT REDUCTION)

5.2 FILLING GAPS IN LEADERSHIP PIPELINE (E.G. DIVERSE SKILLSETS, DEMOGRAPHICS, GENERATIONS)

3.5

2.3

2.2

1.5

DIVERSIFYING LEADERSHIP PIPELINE (E.G. NEW SKILLS, NEW REGIONS, SPECIFIC LEVELS)

DRIVING ENGAGEMENT

DEVELOPING LEADERS TO DRIVE STRATEGIC CHANGE

DRIVING CULTURE CHANGE

Q12: UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL SCHOOLS ARE CULTURES THAT ARE STRIVING TO IMPROVE/EVOLVE, WHAT IS THE PRIMARY DRIVER TO IMPROVE/EVOLVE YOUR CULTURE? As in the preceding question, we asked respondents to rank a list of items that could apply regularly to schools: •

Attract diverse talent (lack of diverse talent)

•

Reduce loss of top talent

•

Improve the school’s brand

•

Low employee morale/engagement

•

Difficulty on boarding new talent

•

Improve organisational alignment and collaboration

•

Improve organisational performance

•

Other (please specify) 7

ECIS Leadership Development Report | May 2016

Their responses painted an interesting picture, with the most frequently cited item being low employee morale at 37.5%, followed by attracting diverse talent in order to make up for a lack of diverse talent at 25%. Three items tied at 12.5% each: to improve organisational alignment and collaboration, to improve the school’s brand, and to reduce the loss of top talent.

The notion of talent captured two of the five areas ranked by respondents. Yet noteworthy to us were the items that received no ranking: to improve organisational performance and the notion that onboarding new talent was a difficult thing.

12.5%

12.5%

12.5%

25%

37.5%

IMPROVE ORGANISATION ALIGNMENT & COLLABORATION

IMPROVE THE SCHOOL’S BRAND

REDUCE LOSS OF TOP TALENT

ATTRACT DIVERSE TALENT (LACK OF DIVERSE TALENT)

LOW EMPLOYEE MORALE ENGAGEMENT

Q13: WHAT ARE THE THREE MOST-USED STRATEGIES IN YOUR ORGANISATION TO IMPROVE/EVOLVE CULTURE? Given the preponderance of literature and development programmes focused on culture, respondents were asked to rank the following items related to changing or evolving the culture of a school: •

Culture assessments

•

Diversity and inclusion education

•

Coaching and mentoring

•

Executive communications

•

Embedding culture change in management objectives

•

Formal change management initiative

•

Manger/leader education

•

Cohort-based development

•

Attracting new talent with fresh perspectives

•

Team alignment

•

Communications 8

ECIS Leadership Development Report | May 2016

Responses suggest the use of a broad set of strategies in schools, though the strategy of ‘team alignment’ scored a zero, which was rather surprising, given the coursework available on leading teams as part of existing leadership development programmes. Remembering that the question asked respondents to rank their top three strategies, these data must be read in backward fashion, suggesting therefore that manager/leader education was consistently ranked as the top strategy, earning it a score of 1. The use of culture assessments came a close second at 1.2, whilst coaching and mentoring placed next-to-last, which was surprising again, given the literature and practice of this strategy. What was perhaps even more notable was that cohort-based development tied with executive communications (commandand-control is apparently alive and well) as last. So frequently we hear that executive communications are perhaps the worst way to undertake culture change, yet also we hear of the benefits of cohortbased development. That they are tied for last is a point worth further consideration.

1.0

1.2

2.0

2.0

CULTURE ASSESSMENTS

ATTRACTING NEW TALENT WITH FRESH PERSPECTIVES

FORMAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.4

EMBEDDING CULTURE CHANGE IN MANAGEMENT

DIVERSITY & INCLUSION EDUCATION

MANAGER / LEADER EDUCATION

2.7 EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

COMMUNICATION

COACHING AND MENTORING

2.7

0

COHORT-BASED DEVELOPMENT

TEAM ALIGNMENT

9

ECIS Leadership Development Report | May 2016

Q14: DOES YOUR SCHOOL LEVERAGE ITS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AGENDA (SERVING THE GREATER GOOD OF THE INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION COMMUNITY) TO DEVELOP LEADERS? Respondents were asked to focus on the notion of social responsibility, or mission impact, of the school in terms of how (perhaps why) schools were investing in leadership development.

12.5% DEFINITELY

YES

12.5% SOMEWHAT

37.5% UNSURE

YES

12.5%

25%

SOMEWHAT

DEFINITELY

NO

NO

That one-third (37.5%) of respondents were unsure whether the mission impact of the school was a principal driver of developing leaders was rather surprising, yet this perspective is compounded when we consider that the ‘somewhat no’ category garnered a response of 12.5%, followed by ‘definitely no’ at 25%, making for a cumulative figure of 75% stating ambivalence or disagreement that mission impact is playing a role in leadership development. Only 25% felt that their schools were somewhat or definitely relying on mission impact to drive development of leaders.

Q15: WHAT BEST DESCRIBES THE IDEAL RATIO OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES AT YOUR SCHOOL? We asked respondents to consider the following types of leadership development programmes and identify what they felt was the ideal ratio:

100/0

75/25

50/50

CUSTOMISED SOLUTIONS

25/75

0/100 PRE-DESIGNED SOLUTIONS

LIVE, IN-PERSON DEVELOPMENT

SELF-DIRECTED, ON-LINE DEVELOPMENT

TIME-BOUND DEVELOPMENT

DEVELOPMENT JOURNEY

CONTEXTUALLY-BASED DEVELOPMENT

TOPICALLY FOCUSED DEVELOPMENT

10

ECIS Leadership Development Report | May 2016

Responses as to the ratio between customised solutions and pre-designed solutions showed the following:

100/0

75/25

50/50

25/75

0/100

0%

50%

37.50%

0%

12.50%

Responses as to the ratio between live, in-person development and self-directed online employment showed:

100/0

75/25

50/50

25/75

0/100

37.50%

12.50%

37.50%

12.50%

0%

Responses as to the ratio between time-bound development and a development journey indicated:

100/0

75/25

50/50

25/75

0/100

0%

25%

50%

25%

0%

Q16: HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE RETURN ON YOUR SCHOOL’S INVESTMENT IN LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT? Although respondents were presented with five categories to describe how they felt that their schools’ funds had been spent on developing leaders, they centred in on two areas: fair (75%) and good (25%).

Somewhat damning praise?

0%

VERY GOOD

25% GOOD

75% FAIR

11

0%

POOR

0%

VERY POOR

ECIS Leadership Development Report | May 2016

Q17: IF YOU WERE ABLE TO START OVER COMPLETELY WITH LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT AT YOUR SCHOOL, HOW MUCH OF YOUR CURRENT APPROACH WOULD YOU KEEP? Respondents shared a very telling view of how much they would keep and how much they would discard. There are four specific touch points: 37.5% reported that they would keep 60% of the current approach, 12.5% reported that they would keep 70% of the current approach, whilst 25% reported that they would keep either 20% or 30% of their current approach. Not a ringing endorsement to be sure; in any case, keeping 80% to 100% of the current approach to leadership development was not an option, yet neither was keeping 0% or 10% of it, nor half of it (40% to 50%). In other words, half (50%) felt that keeping a good amount of it in place made sense, whilst the other half felt that keeping no more than a third of it would make good sense.

% OF RESPONDENTS

WOULD KEEP

% OF CURRENT APPROACH

25%

20%

25%

30%

37.50%

60%

12.50%

70%

12

ECIS Leadership Development Report | May 2016

Q18: AT WHICH LEVEL COULD LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT BE MOST IMPROVED TO MEET YOUR SCHOOL’S STRATEGIC AGENDA? Respondents’ drag-and-drop method of ranking, with 1 representing the highest impact, suggested that improving leadership development for middle leaders (1.9) would stand to meet the strategic agenda, with slightly less impact going to team-level leaders (2.5), and less yet for heads of school (2.8) and senior leaders (2.9).

1.9

MID-LEVEL LEADERS

2.5

2.8

TEAM (GRADE LEVEL OR SIMILAR) LEADERS

HEAD OF SCHOOL

2.9

SENIOR LEADERS

Q19: RANK THE BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT. The most frequently ranked top barrier to effective implementation was lack of buy-in or support from top leadership and governance at 1.5, with ‘other’ at 2.0, yet not specified as requested. Interestingly, the lowest-ranked barrier to effective implementation was lack of budget.

1.5

LACK OF BUY-IN OR SUPPORT FROM TOP LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE

2

2.3

OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)

LACK OF BUY-IN OR SUPPORT AMONGST OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

13

3.0 LACK OF BUDGET

ECIS Leadership Development Report | May 2016

Q20: WHAT ARE THE THREE PRIMARY (MOST FREQUENT) TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT YOU HAVE RECEIVED IN YOUR CAREER? Respondents were given the following types of development to identify as the most frequent types they had experienced.

•

Assessment and feedback

•

Conferences

•

Individual coaching and mentoring

•

Action learning (e.g. project-based)

•

Experiential learning (e.g. immersive)

•

Applied learning (e.g. on-the-job)

•

Self-directed learning

•

Group-based learning (e.g. cohorts)

•

Team-based learning

Results indicated that all these types were in evidence, with cohorts, action learning, and individual coaching/mentoring occurring the most frequently. Interestingly, though team-based learning (in which a leadership team engages in a learning activity together) is reflected here, it is not ranked as frequent as cohort-based learning. Given the earlier data in this report on the disconnect between capabilities and behaviours in leadership teams, one would think that team-based learning should figure more prominently. Also receiving lower frequencies, however, were applied learning and experiential learning, and one is left to wonder what leadership development that was applied and/or experiential might create in the way of results.

1

1

1

1.8

2

ACTION LEARNING (E.G. PROJECTBASED)

INDIVIDUAL COACHING & MENTORING

GROUP-BASED LEARNING (E.G. COHORTS)

ASSESSMENT & FEEDBACK

CONFERENCES

2.2

2.3

2.3

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING

APPLIED LEARNING (E.G. ON-THE-JOB)

14

EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING (E.G. IMMERSIVE)

2.5 TEAM-BASED LEARNING

ECIS Leadership Development Report | May 2016

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER INSIGHT This pilot survey provides a number of interesting insights. There was a notable degree of success in identifying the locations which respondents feel are desirable for a first headship, and we would hope that a recruitment agency would be able to utilise this data internally in terms of identifying why/where/ how to invest their time, energy, and resources in terms of candidate identification and subsequent placement. In this same vein, we would be curious to know what other items recruitment agencies would like to learn about the leadership pool, especially in light of the fact that the international schools sector continues to expand at a strong pace, and more leaders will be needed for existing as well as new schools. Just as there is an acknowledged teacher recruitment challenge, so too is there one for leaders.

From a leadership development perspective, the most thought-provoking finding is that of the disconnect between capabilities to deliver and behaviours to deliver. The importance of such a disconnect cannot be understated. Put simply, it is crucial for the success of existing and new schools that all members of a leadership team, including the head of school, not only possess the capacities to deliver on strategy, they must exhibit and practice the behaviours that make execution happen. It is a fundamental balance to maintain; this survey would suggest that the two are notably imbalanced, and that gives us pause for concern. Any provider of leadership development programming should consider how to address this imbalance, and respond with a sense of urgency.

On behalf of ECIS and in service to the community of international educators,

Kevin J Ruth, Ph.D. Chief Executive | ECIS

146 Buckingham Palace Rd, London SW1W 9TR +44 (0)20 7824 7040 ecis.org

The Educational Collaborative for International Schools. ECI Schools t/a ECIS is a Company Limited by Guarantee in England (No. 08109626), and a Registered Charity in England and Wales (No. 1150171). VAT Number GB 160 9238 11.

15