The increase in political polarization, dissension, arguments over pandemic mitigation strategies, and rude behavior by board members is making it hard for school districts to operate in an effective manner. We are seeing these issues expand across our society which is truly disturbing.
I believe these issues are leading school superintendents and administrators to question how they can “right the ship”. Many are struggling with the onslaught of concerns being faced, which seem to be gaining momentum. Unfortunately, answers are elusive…
Today, I want to spend some time discussing based upon my experience and observation how you can analyze the actions of a divided board. Additionally, I hope to outline a few approaches you might use to address individual board members.
Divided boards are known for their dissension and their individual actions lead members of the public to choose camps, either they support the position being taken by the board member, or they feel the person is wrong and should be removed.
As a superintendent dealing with a divided board, I believe your first step is to assess the paradigm from which each board member is operating. Once you understand the underpinnings of their actions, you can then begin to consider how best to interact with them and guide them moving forward.
It seems to me that when dissension exists on a board its individual members are operating from one of three paradigms: 1) The board member is unaware of the true facts related to the issue and thus is operating out of ignorance, 2) The individual is acting based upon strongly held philosophical beliefs, 3) The board member is agenda-driven and thus is not operating in good faith.
As stated above, in Paradigm #1, the board member is likely taking a position based upon flawed information or a lack of clarity related to what is being discussed. The goal with this individual is to create “cognitive dissonance”. In other words, provide them with information from a reliable source which shows them why what they are saying or believe is incorrect.
No one wants to be wrong, so I am not advocating that you would challenge them on their stance, but rather give them information which might lead them to draw a different conclusion. I would recommend following up with the individual after the information is provided to make sure it has been reviewed. Taking this action can open the door to further discussion in a less politically charged environment where true dialogue can occur. It is your hope that through this interaction the individual’s position might change, which will represent a victory for truth in decision making.
In Paradigm #2 the board member is acting based upon philosophical beliefs which are important to them individually. Although you as superintendent may see the issue in another way, as may other board members or the public, it is important to remember that this board member truly embraces the position they hold.
In working with this individual, it is important to expose them to other perspectives, especially those from individuals or organizations which they respect. If the board member can see others whom they align with look at the issue in a different way this can have powerful impact. Of course, it is likely an alternative perspective from others with similar beliefs may not exist, but it is still important to make sure this board member has an opportunity to understand the other side of the argument.
The reason for this is that individuals with strongly held beliefs often live in an echo chamber where everything they hear and read comes from one perspective or set of sources. Regardless of the issue, it is important that this board members hears all sides so they can make the best decision possible.
I personally believe Paradigm #3 board members tend to be the most difficult to work with as they have a predetermined outcome in mind and are not open to alternative points of view. Often the agenda-driven individual is not only operating from a certain paradigm, but they are also invested in pursuing a “power play”.
It isn’t that they just desire a certain outcome, but they believe they have the public support to achieve their goals. It is not common that individuals who operate from this perspective believe they are the lone voice on an issue. The board member who holds a strong philosophical belief may operate individually, but agenda-driven board members think they have a support structure to push their position.
To combat the agenda-driven individual it often comes down to the power which was described above. In other words, the individual must see that a large percentage of the public sees the issue another way. We know that important concerns normally come down on two sides and it is the alternative perspective which must be seen and understood in the board room. At a minimum strong support for the alternative position from others signals to the agenda-driven board member that they will be challenged if they pursue their existing path. As I stated at the beginning these are thoughts based upon observation and experience. I would be interested in hearing what you might think regarding these challenges and what thoughts or ideas you might share to help others. Please enter take a moment to share in the comments section below and remember that we all gain when we share our thoughts and ideas with each other.
You have accurately described the “types” here and some plausible solutions. Thank you for your leadership, Howard.
Thanks for the comment, Deb! I hope the post is helpful to those who are dealing with these very challenging issues.