By Grant Simpson, PhD
Remember when we discussed the horrible error of hiring a “warm body,” because “it was better than nothing?” Fortunately for most, one of these disasters is enough to make “Never again!” a part of our vocabulary. Here’s another hiring dilemma to ponder. Do you hire people who look like you…not physically, but with similar skill sets and personalities? As a young principal, I went to a workshop on style preference where the presenter posed that very question. It really got my attention, and I couldn’t wait for the next faculty meeting where I administered the survey to all. I had hired many of them and was pleased to verify distinct diversity with some in every category. Conversely, at the neighboring elementary, my Type A colleague surrounded herself with similarity, with one crucial difference. She was a very aggressive leader who tended to hire passive, compliant types. You could eat off the floors at her school. While it was a safe, controlled environment, it was void of that learning “buzz” or the creative ideas that spring from collaboration. How did I know? Because she asked me to do workshops with them on dealing with difficult parents.
Hiring is probably the most important thing that school leaders do. Including appropriate faculty, establishing job responsibilities, discussing preferred attributes, and designing effective questions all add value to the process. A key diagnostic question becomes: “What do we need to balance our team?” This can be most helpful in deciding between several strong candidates. We may be drawn to those who are more like us, but do they bring what we are lacking? A principal of a large primary (K-2) campus related the following story. She had 10 sections of first grade and was adding an 11th. That semester they had two very strong student teachers, both of whom applied for the position opening in January. You can probably guess what happened. Five of the first-grade teachers aligned with one candidate and five the other. The principal described the team as filled with strong independent voices and saw this as a polarizing issue. She had used an interview instrument that determined prevailing characteristics of the candidates. When she met with the team, she gave them the results without identifying the applicant, pointing out that one scored highly in working collaboratively, while the other was strongly independent. The faculty quickly agreed that they needed a team player, that they already had plenty of strong wills. Smart leader, smart move.
Another example comes from a principal whose fast-growing population finally warranted extra staff. His area superintendent said that he could hire either an assistant principal or a counselor. He took the dilemma to his team leaders. They determined that the predominant social issues of their student body would be best served by a counselor, and he concurred. Further, he asked the team leaders to participate in the hiring process, explaining that they would review applications, invite finalists and conduct interviews. Importantly, he clearly stipulated their role as identifying acceptable candidates and rank ordering their top two choices, with him making the final decision. Happy for significant inclusion, the team leaders quickly agreed. Because of a very strong applicant pool, this proved to be a pleasant process but a daunting choice. The principal called the meeting in which both he and the team leaders would present the top two choices. Surprisingly, both had picked the same two candidates. However, their number one was his number two and vice versa. “So, what now?” the team leaders queried. The principal explained that while both candidates would undoubtedly add value to the school, he would hire his first choice/their second.
He added, “The palpable strengths of your number one are a lot like mine, and there’s enough of me to go around. The other has organizational talents that are not my strong suit and will bring great balance to the onslaught of daily demands.” His frank disclosure sealed the deal. The chosen counselor began immediately. She and the principal bonded quickly and seemed to anticipate each other’s needs. The communication between them was constant and marked by candor on who best fit the challenge and who would do what. This became a best-case scenario engendered by effective decision making that sought to balance strengths and weaknesses.
Dr. Simpson’s column, “Mistakes School Leaders Make,” was published in TEPSA News from 2009-2017.
TEPSA News, November/December 2013
Copyright © 2013 by the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association. No part of articles in TEPSA publications or on the website may be reproduced in any medium without the permission of the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association.
