How to be a Vulnerable School Leader

The education system conditions us to seek certainty, but the reality is that teaching and learning are wrought with uncertainty. Kids are constantly changing; standards and policy shift; and the infamous pendulum swings, depending on what’s trending and who’s in power.

Leaders who run schools with an iron fist neither create the conditions in which teachers, learners, and families can weather these changes nor engender vulnerability in classroom. And boy, do we need vulnerability in our classrooms. To learn is to be vulnerable: it requires us to open up ourselves to the unknown, to be curious, to be wrong, and most importantly, to change.

So what does a vulnerable leader look like?

Vulnerable school leaders build consensus

Far too many administrators make decisions on behalf of their teachers because they are afraid that too many voices will make it too challenging to make decisions. While I’ve never been an administrator, I can say that I am guilty as charged having fallen into this way of thinking. But in my experience, it seems to always turn out the same: when leaders make decisions on behalf of teachers without their consent, it generates distrust and resentment. Teachers feel like their voices don’t matter, eroding a sense of autonomy and validation.

To approach decision-making with vulnerability, and to ensure teachers feel a sense of autonomy and validation with regard to school policy, consider making decisions through consensus.

The word consensus consists of con-, meaning “together,” and sense, meaning “feel.” Therefore, consensus literally means “feel together,” not necessarily agree on everything. The question then becomes, how do we make decisions based on consensus, knowing full well that not everyone will agree on everything?

Fist to Five provides a consensus-building tool where participants within a group rank their agreement with a proposal from a fist to five fingers. In my first school, any ranking from 1-5 communicated an acknowledgement of and consent to whatever proposal or decision was being made. The rankings signaled a level of excitement or willingness to lead. 1 implied that you were either skeptical of the plan or not willing to lead its implementation. A 4 or 5 signaled enthusiasm and a desire to lead. A fist signaled a firm disagreement with the plan. In this case, the person or group of people who “fisted” the proposal would have to propose an alternative. Without a viable alternative, their dissent was acknowledged, and the resolution or proposal would pass.

It’s true that not every decision requires consensus. There are many decisions that I know teachers would be happy for school leaders to make on their own, without a formal consensus vote. But what’s most important is being transparent and identifying what those decisions are that principals can make on their own before the school year starts.

Vulnerable school leaders acknowledge that they don’t know everything

It’s simply unreasonable for any one human being to know everything. That’s why we engage in this work together. As cliché as it sounds, educating children truly takes a village, because in a village, we leverage the gifts of individuals and allow them to contribute to the collective.

When school leaders acknowledge they don’t know everything, they create the opportunity to engage in inquiry for teachers, perhaps even modeling it for teachers who are not used to asking questions. Instead of having hard-and-fast answers, they can wonder along with teachers, encouraging teachers to explore and test ideas, as opposed to resigning to one seemingly correct way of doing things. Moreover, by embracing the notion that principals or school leaders don’t need to have all the answers, it encourages teachers to build self-efficacy and find answers on their own. While it may sometimes be more comfortable for some teachers to simply ask coaches or administrators for an answer to a problem of practice, it’s ultimately not best for teachers in the long run if this is their only strategy for problem-solving.

Instead, the vulnerable school leader should create the conditions within which teachers can ask questions, take pedagogical risks, make mistakes, and share their learnings with the entire school community, so their individual learnings can become a part of the collective wisdom of the school. This might look like engaging teams in PLC work, using a student work analysis protocol, or even hosting learning labs where teachers can experiment with their teaching and gain reflections from trusted colleagues.

Vulnerable leaders encourage without controlling

I understand the desire to control, believe me. The stakes are high in schools, with test scores as a primary success metric that is often linked to a principal’s evaluation. But the reality is that micromanaging teaching is more likely to be counterproductive in our efforts to create humanized and sustainable schools. When teachers are micromanaged, they not only become resentful, they start to lose a sense of self-efficacy. They begin to doubt themselves, wondering if each decision they make will get them in trouble or be out of line with school-wide directives.

In The Value of Vulnerability from ASCD’s September 2019 edition of Educational Leadership, I write about the importance of vulnerability in schools. I share a story of taking risks and making mistakes in my own classroom, and how my principal not only supported this, she encouraged me in continuing to try new things, even as a lesson was bombing.

“Let’s find a time to chat about it later,” she said to me, after witnessing a portion of the lesson.

And chat about it, we did. It was productive, creating the conditions within which I could reflect and better my practice. This type of learning can’t happen if we micromanage teachers and prevent them from making mistakes. It can only come if we open ourselves up to uncertainty, allowing teaching to take calculated risks, reflecting and learning from their successes and failures.

Vulnerable leaders Set boundaries

Being vulnerable doesn’t require an “anything goes” mentality. While we don’t want to micromanage or control teachers, it is important to have a clear pedagogical vision for the school, with accompanying boundaries around what types of teaching will lead to fruitful learning. This vision, too, should be built in partnership with teachers and instructional leaders at your school. This will ensure that teachers understand the boundaries within which they are expected to teach, meanwhile ensuring they’ve had a voice in forming and executing that vision.

While being vulnerable means opening ourselves up to uncertainty, it doesn’t have to mean opening ourselves up to chaos.

What did I miss?

What would you add? Tweet this article out, tag me, and let me know your thoughts.