A Classic Leadership & Governance Conundrum
A head of school contacted us this week about one of those governance boundary questions that often come up in our work with independent and international schools. The tension between boards and heads over key hiring decisions is so common that we are making it the first in a new Leadership & Governance Practice (L&G) series. Expect similar topics in upcoming occasional posts.
The specific question was about whether (and how) boards should be involved in hiring senior school leaders, such as an assistant or associate head of school. We suggest this question is worth careful thought because the answer isn't as simple as "the board should stay out of it" or "the board should approve every detail." At issue is whether the board should be involved in designing the job description for an assistant or associate head, as well as in interviewing and evaluating candidates.
The cleanest governance principle is that the board hires one employee — the head of school — and the head hires everyone else. This is the standard approach, and it exists for a good reason: it maintains clear lines of authority, protects the head's ability to build a unified leadership team, and keeps the board from interfering in daily operations. If trustees are interviewing candidates for the associate head role or exercising veto power over the head's choice, you've essentially weakened the head's authority in almost every circumstance.
That said, the assistant/associate head position occupies a genuinely unusual space in the organization chart, and there are valid reasons the board might need some involvement, at times — even if it does not exercise approval authority.
Succession and continuity risk. In many schools, the associate head is the de facto successor or interim candidate if the head departs unexpectedly. In this light, the board has a fiduciary interest in knowing who that person is and having confidence in them, even if they don't formally select them. A board that is blindsided by a leadership vacuum because they never engaged with the second-in-command has failed at risk management.
Financial materiality. If the compensation package for an associate head is significant — and it usually is — the board may reasonably expect the head to inform them of the hire and its financial implications, especially if it was not already included in the budget. This is about overseeing resource allocation, not personnel selection.
Consultation versus approval. One approach we’ve observed as a workaround for an insistent board and an anxious head is where the head consults the board chair (or the executive committee) before making the hire—sharing the rationale, the candidate's profile, and how the role aligns with the strategic direction—without asking for permission. This approach keeps the board informed, gives the chair a chance to raise concerns, and maintains the leader's decision-making authority. It's a "no surprises" norm (also a good practice), not a co-management arrangement.
Where schools get into trouble is when the board formalizes approval authority over this hire without recognizing what that signals. If the board can reject the head's choice of associate head, the implicit message is that the head isn't fully trusted to assemble their own team. This dynamic tends to corrode the partnership. It also creates a political challenge for the associate head, who now reports to two leaders — the head formally managing them and the board that approved them. Tempting as it may be to elide boundaries while claiming extenuating circumstances, we caution boards (and heads) against deviating from good practice.
Here's the concise summary: the board's role should be limited to having input into expectations for the position, such as budget and strategic alignment, being consulted and kept informed, and ensuring capable leadership — but not approving, interviewing, or selecting the candidate. The head makes that decision, for better or worse. After all, it is the head’s assistant or associate, not the boards.