IV. Inducing Commitment

The pressures and expectations that come with being a for-profit education institute are immense. As an education provider, the company is held highly accountable for all outcomes emerging from their schools, and when confronted by parents, stake holders, and media, the company must be able to address any issues with confidence and authority. Naturally, SUIS tries to assume as much control over its schools as possible which includes everything from knowing which instructional programs are running to tracking every detail of profit and spending.

When it comes to finding and directing school leaders, it is probably difficult for the company to have to accept that so much of each school’s success is due to the plans and actions of a single individual rather than the mechanisms that drive its comprehensive design. Successful scalability would call for a design that was “leader proof” similar to the “teacher proof” curricula proposed and tinkered with in the 1960s. Until such a school design miraculously becomes available, companies have little choice but to travail somewhere between “leader proof” and “leader dependent.” The SUIS principal evaluations for instance, clearly demonstrate the company’s attempt to maintain control of their model while relying on the foresight, proaction, and direction of a strong capable leader.

As discussed previously in Section II, the company’s need to remain in command is at odds with the type of charismatic school leader needed to run a school. When a company such as SUIS first opens a school, it is almost always successful because the school leader was either part of the founding team or had a much larger stake in the business. However with the drive towards expansion and scaling, school leaders hired from outside the company are required to be just as vigorous and dedicated while also adhering to strict company procedures. Inducing commitment in school leaders is a major challenge especially if companies such as SUIS want good leaders to stay on board for a period longer than their initial contract.

Steven F. Wilson documents several cases of companies attempting to keep their school leaders committed without compromising organizational models and indicates that none of them are completely successful. The now defunct Advantage Schools tried to expand job flexibility by allowing leaders to “take any actions with respect to parental involvement.” (242). Beacon Schools invested heavily trying to train staff at the corporate office to be able to assist leaders at any time of the day by phone. (244). SABIS provided leaders with a program whereby they could gradually earn more control of their school after completing specific objectives (245). And National Heritage Academies “convenes all principals once a week to identify and resolve common issues. […] If a principal could make a clear argument for a proposed change in curricula, the organization would give full support.” (248).

SUIS too finds it challenging to encourage loyalty in their leaders. While the company allows their leaders a respectful amount of flexibility in choosing academic programs and in staffing, mandatory and encompassing procedures such as “East meets West” can be discouraging. In comparison to the examples cited by Wilson, SUIS employs methods similar to SABIS and National Heritage Academies. Leaders can earn more control of their curriculum by meeting certain expectations, and they are also given opportunities to convene with other leaders to discuss curriculum changes with the director of the international stream.

Inducing commitment is a balancing act between keeping to objectives and respecting the school leader’s dignity. Specific objectives may differ at each site and some leaders will demand more for their loyalty than others, so a precise plan of action would be difficult to conjure. On the other hand, understanding why leaders lose interest in their jobs can offer some tactical knowledge in how to make commitment more stable. Peter Earley and Dick Weindling’s study on the “shelf-life” of school leaders found that the biggest factor contributing to a leader’s commitment is the availability of “fresh challenges.” (82). Leaders want a sense of purpose in their work and once their work becomes repetitive, satisfaction will begin to wane. An anonymously published study in Education Week, offers a different reason claiming that a loss of commitment is caused mostly by work exhaustion. The study claims that leaders feel frustrated by the insufficient time provided for strategic planning and that “matching expenses with enrollment-driven income are anxiety-provoking and time-consuming concerns.” (‘The High Wire Job’ 8).

A work environment that encourages loyalty and satisfaction is something that needs to be constantly maintained through some kind of support and involvement by the company. Issues such as work exhaustion should be identified and dealt with before they become debilitating using strategies such as close monitoring, regular evaluations, and the encouragement of open communication with the head office. In cases where leaders are overwhelmed with several demands at once, the company should also be available to help with prioritizing and distributing certain tasks. Overall, if leaders cannot have full reign of their schools, they should at least be given the assurance of a supportive work environment.

Less direct contentions such as a lack of fresh challenges will likely involve a different sort of involvement by the company. “Fresh challenges” is not something that can be readily provided (for instance in the form of new objectives and curriculum changes), but rather something the leader needs to be able to find on his or her own. Truly charismatic leaders will always find a new challenge and truth be told, few leaders working for SUIS will ever feel “bored” as the school design is never allowed to plateau. Therefore, the availability of challenges is a quality embedded in the school’s mission. If a school leader is to ever sincerely complain about the lack of challenges, the leader is either supernaturally competent or the school’s mission is in need of some major revision.