Evaluating & Compensating Heads
Patrick F. Bassett, NAIS President
www.nais.org
Two Challenges
 How do we evaluate our head responsibly?
 How do we compensate our head
appropriately?
Boards Evaluating Heads
Job Descriptions for Heads (Education Week
Classifieds):
Seeking the Ambassador, the General or the Priest?
College Prep seeks a leader who…
 …is responsive to the constituency and understands the
significance of genuine communication
…is a decisive and well-organized manager who can
make tough decisions and be a steward of resources.
…is a visionary who can set the agenda for the 21st.
century.
Schools & search committees are looking for…
“God on a good day.”
Conundrums of Evaluating Leadership
The Real Job (Education Week op ed, 4/12/95, Rob Evans)
Wanted: A miracle worker who can…
…do more with less
…pacify rival groups
…endure chronic second-guessing
…tolerate low levels of support
…process large volumes of paper
…work double shifts (75 nights out a year).
He or she will have carte blanche to innovate, but…
…cannot spend much money
…replace any personnel, or
…upset any constituency.
Boards Evaluating Heads: Leadership Style

“Social sector leaders are not less decisive than business leaders
as a general rule; they only appear that way to those who fail to
grasp the complex governance and diffuse power structures
common to the social structure.” ~Jim Collins, Good to Great
for the Social Sectors.

“True leadership exists only if people follow when they have the
freedom not to.” ~Jim Collins, Good to Great for the Social
Sectors.
 It’s important to assess and discuss head style issues and
hire or promote complementary upper level leaders.
Boards Evaluating Heads: Leadership Style

Note: Billy Joel’s tribute to wife, “I love you just the way you
are” corresponds to the search committee’s assessment of new
head.
 Incidentally, not too long after the song’s release, Billy
Joel dumped his wife for supermodel Christie Brinkley.
 Heads should consider administering the Myers-Briggs
Personality/Leadership Assessments to their Leadership
Team: Where do we have gaps in style & approach? How
can the team balance and supplement the head’s style?
Myers-Briggs Z+2 Model
I/E (introvert/extrovert); S/N (sensing/intuition);
T/F (thinking/feeling); J/P (judging/perceiving)
Adapted from The Zig-Zag Process for Problem Solving, pages 161-163, People Types
and Tiger Stripes, 3rd edition, 1993, by Gordon D. Lawrence. Gainesville, FL: Center
for Applications of Psychological Type.
S (Sensing): What
problem are we trying
to solve?
What are the facts,
details, frequency?
T (Thinking): What
are the criteria by
which we should
make this decision?
What is the logical
way to address the
problem?
How do you process info?
How do you make decisions?
N (iNtuition): What are
the patterns and theories
for why this might be
happening? How do we
brainstorm solutions?
F (Feeling): What is
the impact on people?
How can we deliver
this info in the best
way to get results?
Conundrums of Evaluating Leadership
Board View of the Head’s Job
 What’s Important
 How To Evaluate
Conundrums of Evaluating Leadership:
The 14 Skill Sets of the Job
Board Chair Priority Order for Head’s Work (NAIS Poll, 1991)
1. Climate and Values
2. Work with Trustees
3. Curriculum
4 Strategic Planning
5. Ensuring Financial Well-being
6. Managing Effective School Policies
7. Public Relations
8. Conflict Management
9. Recruiting Faculty
10. Salaries and Benefits
11. Counseling Personnel
12. Discipline
13. Fund-raising
14. Teaching
Conundrums of Evaluating Leadership
Trustees Priority Order ’91 Poll Heads Priority Order ’91 Poll
1. Climate and Values
4
2. Work with Trustees
11
3. Curriculum
5
4 Strategic Planning
10
5. Ensuring Financial Well-being
12
6. Managing Effective School Policies
8
7. Public Relations
7
8. Conflict Management
6
9. Recruiting Faculty
9
10. Salaries and Benefits
14
11. Counseling Personnel
3
12. Discipline
2
13. Fund-raising
13
14. Teaching
1
The Problem: No match-up in priorities: Boards wanted
CEOs, and Heads wanted to be head-masters.
Conundrums of Evaluating Leadership
Board Chair Priority Order (2001) vs. 1991 Rank vs. 2006 Rank
1. Climate and Values
1
1
2. Recruiting Faculty
9
2
3. Strategic Planning
4
4
4. Ensuring Financial Well-being
5
5
5. Managing Effective School Policies
6
3
6. Work with Trustees
2
7
7. Fund-raising
13
6
8. Public Relations
7
9
9. Curriculum
3
8
10. Salaries and Benefits
10
12
11. Conflict Management
8
10
12. Counseling Personnel
11
11
13. Discipline
12
13
14. Teaching
14
14
Conundrums of Evaluating Leadership
Board Chair vs. Head Priority Order (NAIS Poll 2006)
Chairs
2006
Heads
2006
1. Climate and Values
1
2. Recruiting Faculty
2
3. Managing Effective School Policies
6
4. Strategic Planning
4
5. Ensuring Financial Well-being
3
6. Fund-raising
7
7. Work with Trustees
5
8. Curriculum
10
9. Public Relations
8
10. Conflict Management
9
11. Counseling Personnel
11
12. Salaries & Benefits
12
13. Discipline
13
14. Teaching
14
The New Reality: Strategic match-up in priorities. The Lesson:
Co-define “high impact” activities for this time at this school.
The Perfect Head of School (Walter Ebmyer, ISM, 1980)
The Perfect Head of School always has the right thing to say…wears
good clothes…buys good books…is 29 years old with 40 years of
experience…smiles all the time…visits 15 classes per day and is always
in the office to be available for instant parent conferences…etc.
The Perfect Head of School is always in the next nearest school (not
yours).
If your head does not measure up…
 Send this notice to six other schools that are tired of their heads, too.
 Bundle up your head and send him or her to the school on the top of the
list.
 In one week you will receive 1643 heads--and one will be perfect: Have
faith in this letter.
 One country day school broke the chain and got its old head back in
less than four months.
Head/Board Evaluation Principles
 The head of school is the board’s employee (and
only employee): it is the board’s responsibility to
evaluate the head, not any one else’s.
 The entire board, and not just the Executive
Committee, should be involved.
 This process should occur on an annual basis, in
June.
Head/Board Evaluation Principles
 The evaluation criteria (any or all the following):
 articulated in the context of the job definition:
Which of the 14 “skill sets” are most important
for this school? (Outcomes suggest professional
development or executive coaching focus.)
 related to the school’s success (“dashboard
indicators” of admissions, retention, giving,
outcomes for students, etc.)
 linked to the strategic plan of the school, the
mission, and/or the specific goals set for the year.
incorporated in NAIS’s PGPs/BoardSource’s
online Head Assessment Tool (HAT).
Head/Board Evaluation Principles
 Typically, a board selects a small group of its members
as the head’s evaluation committee (3-5, sometimes the
Executive Committee) to assemble, distill, and discuss the
evaluation results.
 The results and recommendations of the committee are
then shared by the board president and vice-president or
president-elect in private, with the school head, and in
Executive Session, with the entire board.
 Objective goals (a small, manageable number of them)
for the coming year should be set for the head (as they
should also be set for the board…and the school).
Head/Board Evaluation Principles
 Public endorsement of the head follows, building
political capital.
 Why do some heads derail? Hoisted on the petard
of the change agenda. Misreading the culture. The
“substance” rule.
 Why do the same problems results in different
outcomes at differing schools?
 How does the board integrate evaluation with head
compensation? Meet its fiduciary duty to
compensate appropriately but not excessively (and
produce a “safe harbor” rebuttable presumption
checklist to satisfy IRS-required due diligence?
Head/Board Evaluation Principles
 Once evaluation is complete, then…
“Show me the Money” Salary Negotiations:
 Intermediate sanctions obligations to document top
salaried employees' compensation (head and CFO)
are related to performance assessment and market
comparables.
 Due diligence itself is rather onerous: one-time
assessment for multiple-year contract may be an
attractive option (repeated at the end of each
contract term and with yearly compensation
benchmark reports from NAIS to make sure the
total comp remains within appropriate ranges.)
Head Compensation: Fair, Competitive…
AND Defensible
 Issues of Public Transparency and Scrutiny
– 990s on Guidestar.org
– Abuse & Scandal in the Non-profit World
– IRS & State Attorney Office Interest in
Not-for-Profit Operations
– Good governance in the age of SarbannesOxley
Head Compensation: Fair, Competitive…
AND Defensible
Safe Harbor/Rebuttable Presumption Processes to
Avoid IRS Intermediate Sanctions for “Excessive
Compensation”
 Identify & benchmark peer groups by geography,
budget, size, endowment, and anything else deemed
relevant.
 Look at ALL compensation, including things that are
not actually taxable, but are benefits (health premiums
paid by the school, etc.). See NAIS advisory online,
Intermediate Sanctions Update and the StatsOnline
Comp Survey, Part III for categories of compensation.
Head Compensation: Fair, Competitive…
AND Defensible
Safe Harbor/Rebuttable Presumption Processes to
Avoid IRS Intermediate Sanctions for “Excessive
Compensation”
 For high-end divergences from the mainstream of one’s
benchmark groups, develop rationales: e.g., positive
evaluations; national rather than local comparisons;
higher offers from other institutions raiding your stable,
etc.
 Document, document, and document again the data, the
discussion with the entire board, and the vote to
approve the compensation package.
Goal: Fair, Competitive, Defensible
Compensation Package
It’s important to make your head happy…
but not ecstatic.
CAIS-CA: NAIS
members AND
non-NAIS
members
CAIS-CA: NAIS
members only
NAIS Customized Reports
Governance Case Study: Clash of Styles
Download from:
http://www.blueskybroadcast.com/Client/NAIS/Case/case.html
The Brutal Facts:
• Head is in his fourth year of a very successful run in
terms of school growth, parent satisfaction, and
introduction of new ideas.
• A highly respected segment of the senior faculty,
however, is not happy with many of the changes and
begins to express its unhappiness to their friends on the
board.
• Prior to the April evaluation session by the board of the
head, a senior faculty confides to the board chair that
there is a movement afoot for faculty to vote “no
confidence” in the head.
• What’s the board do now?
Governance Case Study: Clash of Styles
NAIS Position: How to handle a faculty revolt.
• Examine openly the extent to which board members have
neglected to cut-off such “off the record” complaints.
• Co-define with the head “what’s important” and “high
impact” activities, and evaluate the head accordingly, the
“substance” rule.
• Recommend that the head conduct a “school climate
survey” among the faculty and staff to ascertain the
health of the climate and to seek counsel on how to
address issues to improve it if necessary.
• Boards must know the role of and boundaries for the
faculty.
The End!
For More Resources on this Topic, Go to
www.nais.org
Appendix: Related Slides
Patrick F. Bassett, NAIS President
www.nais.org