How do we know we are choosing the right leader for our school?

“Thinking, Fast and Slow” by psychologist Daniel Kahneman is a cautionary tale that explores the dual systems of thinking that drive decision-making. Kahneman reveals human judgment’s strengths and pitfalls, highlighting common cognitive biases and errors, such as overconfidence and loss aversion. Unconscious biases can influence decisions, and humans, unfortunately, tend to believe that our judgments are objective.

Why is this important?

Because the consequences of biased decision-making in leader selection can be profound, potentially shaping the future of a school for years to come. Understanding the root causes of flawed decision-making is not just important, it’s empowering. It’s critical in the work of search committees responsible for appointing new leaders. It gives us the knowledge and tools to make more informed and unbiased decisions.

Bias

The “halo bias” is an example of the illogical thinking that often goes into choosing a school’s next leader. For example, a candidate might be from an apparent “elite school” or another state/city perceived as more elite. This perception becomes an active representation of all the candidate’s attributes, leading to thinking like this:

1. This candidate comes from an elite school/city/state.
2. We wish our school were more like the candidate’s school/city/state.
3. Therefore, we should hire this candidate.

More Bias

The ‘deficit hiring bias’ is another example of how the search process can be influenced by undervaluing the current leader’s attributes when choosing their successor. In simpler terms, this bias occurs when the search committee focuses on what they perceive as the current leader’s weaknesses, for example, a lack of parent relationship skills, and then overvalues this area when evaluating potential successors. In this instance, the committee’s view of the current leader influences their unconscious focus on parent relationships over other essential attributes required for the position.

Even More Bias

Many schools amass an imposing group of stakeholders and a high-profile consulting firm and essentially get it wrong from here. The ‘substitution bias’ suggests the group replaces a more complex question, such as ‘Is this candidate the best fit for our school? ‘, with a simpler one, ‘Do we like this candidate? ‘. The candidate seems to ‘love us’ so we must be suitable to choose them. Unfortunately, the committee has failed to ask what evidence they have to support this ‘fit’.

Final Thoughts

Search committees should be more than just diligent in their work; they should be committed to a rigorous and disciplined approach. This is not a task to be taken lightly. While bias cannot be eliminated, hiring consultants who understand the importance of selecting the best candidate based on science and evidence can help neutralise the impact of prejudice.

Follow us on LinkedIn to keep up-to-date with more exciting news and information from Aspire2.