School Leadership and Kennett's eight year theory

Jeff Kennett's recent declaration that Hawthorn coach Alistair Clarkson should "be sacked or resign" at the end of the year has caused significant discussion in footy mad Melbourne. Is failing to beat Geelong since winning the 2008 AFL Premiership against said team justification for dismissal? Kennett claims the side has underachieved by winning only one Premiership from two grand final appearances since 2004. The merits of this are debatable but I'm interested in Kennett's theory on leadership.

Kennett's stance is that after years of hearing Clarkson's voice the players become numb to a roasting or verbal push. In the world of coaching this is probably true. AFL has a strong culture of unity with rules to prevent players from readily changing clubs. Unlike EPL or NBA coaches (who rarely last as long as he has anyway), Clarkson probably has faced the same players regularly throughout his tenure. Kennett's statement that "six to eight years was as long enough as any coach should stay at a club" is perhaps based on his own failure to win a third term when he was Victorian Premier. He has pulled out a similar number though when discussing AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou's future as league boss. The argument then was that leaders come in fresh and can establish themselves as leaders. Eight year is time enough to lead change and still provide stability. At the eight year mark, again a figure probably chosen based on Kennett's own experience of public office, a leader and their team becomes too familiar and much less effective. Certainly in Demetriou's case, and perhaps Clarkson's, recent form suggests those around them are tired of the same song and dance. Kennett's argument is that a change in leadership after six to eight years can only be good and preempt the decline that a self-satisfied leader might oversee.

So what does this have to do with school leadership? With a new EBA looming perhaps it is time to discuss the role we want leaders to play in schools. Kennett's belief, though there is little research to support it, could have some basis for how we contract and appoint our principals. The current government school principal contract is a standard five years - the same length as the standard strategic plan. Principal's rarely are appointed at the end of the last review period so can spend the bulk to their first contract implementing a plan they had no say in. An eight year contract would allow them time to settle in and participate in a review of the previous five years. Having been through a few reviews there is no better way to get to know the big picture of a school. Then they would be able to set direction and plan for the next five years - all of which they will be around for. In their last couple of contracted years they would begin a new strategic plan to maintain or readjust the school's goals. An eight year contract would provide this stability.

The biggest problem is that principal's do not always leave after their five years (and why would you want them to if they're doing good things in the school?). Two principal contracts would mean sixteen years at the same school instead of ten. As Kennett says though, people become tired of the same voice and the same personality. Change can be good and can be a catalyst for renewal. It can re-energise people who didn't even know they were stagnating. This seems to be the core belief of the American presidential system - it certainly ensures there is a different voice for the State of the Union address at least every eight years.

So perhaps school leaders should be moved on after eight years? It might work. But it would be conditional on a clear appointment process and development program. The current government has stripped principal's of access to these regional resources. No one is perfect - but imagine being stuck with the equivalent of [insert crappy sport coach here] for eight whole years? There's a reason Clarkson will stay at the Hawks and Demetriou will stay as CEO. It is the same reason Collingwood stuck with Mick Malthouse despite taking TEN years to deliver a premiership (what must Kennett make of that success rate?). We prefer the devil we know to the devil we don't - at least when things are going well. There would need to be regular review periods of course and a chance for 360degree feedback. These mechanisms exist in the current system and should be utilized regularly.

A mentor once told me four years was plenty in a school. Perhaps it is sometimes. But sometimes the job is only half done and a second term is necessary. Whether we need a third term is a question worth asking.

I'm on school holidays so I'm hoping I can blog everyday. If the one month old lets me. They won't all be teacher/education/leadership type stuff.