The curse of short-termism
We often attribute leadership turnover to systemic problems, governance issues and challenging external contexts. Without doubt, these are major factors. However, from our vantage point of appointing senior leaders into international schools – reviewing many hundreds of applications every year and speaking to even more candidates and contacts – we can identify something else. We see a culture of short-termism for which the leaders themselves and the schools that appoint them must share some responsibility.
Part of the problem lies in the patterns established during international teaching careers. Fixed-term contracts are a way of life but have also become an excuse. “Reason for leaving: End of contract.” Well, actually, it’s not – a contract can be renewed. We regularly encounter candidates who have served for a decent period in a school or two in a national system, but then move internationally and race through a series of one- and two-year appointments. That continues through middle leadership and into senior leadership. When we question it, the common refrain is: “I had achieved all I could.” Really? In two years? In a school environment that is hard-wired to operate on an annual cycle?
This matters when we see careers made up of a succession of short-term appointments, and it matters when we see schools that are changing heads every year or two. We seem to have a culture in which teachers and leaders think that moving on after a single contract is the norm and the way to progress. Some may appreciate the itinerant lifestyle. However, our sense from those hundreds of conversations every year is that for many it is a source of unhappiness, even if they put a brave face on it, rationalise it and explain every move in painstaking detail.
It is important to say that a short-term position here or there during the course of a career is not the issue. There are a number of very good reasons for the occasional quicker-than-expected move, such as family illness, a change of school ownership, national policies or regulatory change, visa issues, conflict or civil unrest.
These are perfectly-valid exceptions. What should concern us more is that significant parts of our sector – those seeking appointment, those doing the appointing – are neglecting the importance of depth of experience and sustained impact in a role. Breadth appears to be prioritised at the expense of depth.