Note: This article is part of a series that focus on topics in schools and leadership in education.
One of the most important responsibilities for any principal is hiring. As a public school administrator, I can confidently say that hiring well is the most essential contribution I made to impact students. Equally as true, poor hiring drains the time, energy, and resources of leadership in ways that are difficult to calculate. The amount of time redirected away from student learning due to hires gone wrong is overwhelming.
Note: Best hiring practices are contingent upon a quality pool of candidates. I recognize that many schools have faced crisis hiring situations since the COVID pandemic in which they face shallow, sometimes empty, candidate pools. I concede that the content of this article is intended for ideal circumstances where competition for teaching positions is the norm.
There is so much talk about vision and mission statements in schools. I agree that it is absolutely essential that a school leader is able to facilitate the development of a shared vision, which is easier said than done. However, it is evident that mission statements are basically meaningless in many cases. In fact, I have repeatedly had teachers tell me they know their school has a mission statement but they have no idea what it says. If the frontline workers in classrooms don’t know the mission of the school, then I can guarantee you the broader school community has no clue what it is either.
The point of having a clear vision and mission is simplicity. It should serve the organization by providing an anchor point for all decision-making. If your mission does not simplify your decisions and actions, then scrap it.
Ignorance of any organization’s mission is the result of not understanding the why behind the mission on a practical level. There is no need to go through the effort of creating a mission statement that does not guide your daily work. Going through a process to create a mission statement just to have one that can be filed away or hung on a wall is a waste of time for everyone involved, especially students. A school would be better off just going through the motions of basic lesson planning cycles with state-mandated curriculum standards (even without high-functioning PLCs) and leaving it at that. Anything beyond that, which is not explicitly intentional, detracts from student learning. The mission of the school has to become the lens by which all things are considered: curriculum, instructional practices, discipline systems, staff development, and, most critical for our purposes here, hiring.
The driving question through the hiring process is, how can this person align with and support our mission to achieve our vision? It is the filter for everything. Every interview question and performance task, each resume review and reference check, and all discussions among the selection panel should refer back to the mission. Clearly defined values around a shared mission guide the team and the principal in decision-making.
I am a big fan of collaborative hiring. I have always benefited from essential stakeholder voices being drawn into the process. However, without a clear vision and mission guiding the entire endeavor, more voices only produce more noise. Individuals will resort to their biases and personal preferences. Decisions will be made more on feelings and politics than purpose and long-term sustainability in the best interest of students and their learning.
Closer Than You Think is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Mission consensus will go a long way in preventing bad hires, but I also recommend acknowledging the reality of our biases in decision-making. Depending on which circles you run in, you may hear the word “bias” and freak out. The truth is, if you have a brain, you have a bias. Most biased thinking is developed over time as our brain repeatedly has experiences and forms patterns in our way of perceiving what is similar and different in the world around us, including people we interact with. The objective of eliminating all bias is unrealistic, but it is vital to name it in order to reduce it as much as possible.
As a team comes together before an interview, I think it is best practice to collaboratively reflect on how biases may show up in hiring processes. For example, each of us makes a quick, usually subconscious, judgment based on how fast or slow someone answers a question. If the candidate pauses before answering a question, one person views it as thoughtful and reflective while another views it as a sign that the person lacks conviction or can’t be quick on their feet. On certain topics, a more vocal candidate will come across as passionate and knowledgeable to some panelists while causing others to wonder if they are too opinionated and disruptive for the work environment.
Of course, there are all kinds of biases based on appearance that invade our thinking, whether it is related to gender, skin color, size, dress, etc. It is also good to be cognizant of our biases related to how a person sounds, including accents. Simply coming together and calling out potential biases before ever sitting down with candidates is a step toward calling in all voices around the table. The more vulnerability and authenticity have been built up among the panelists, the easier this is.
An often disregarded bias that can be a significant factor in hiring is the primacy effect. We are quick to make judgments based on the first thing we hear. Additionally, research has shown that we are much more sure of ourselves than we should be, as we often exhibit a confirmation bias, which causes us to draw conclusions on too little information. A red flag, and I promise you this is way too common, is when you hear a hiring official say, “I knew this candidate was the right (or wrong) person for the job within the first minute. I can just sense these things.” While it sounds like someone has honed their perceptual ability, it is a sign of impulsive decision-making based on emotion related to their own personality style more than a solid analysis of the candidate.
Equally as problematic is the recency effect. The last thing we learned at a workshop or the most recent complaint from an employee or the last emotional encounter we had before conducting an interview can affect our thinking and cloud our judgment. Not only that, the last thing the candidate leaves us with could carry more weight in our minds than the rest of the interview. Again, we are human and these are not necessarily wrong things to occur, but they should be identified in the open. (A side note to candidates: What you say first or last could make or break your interview.)
What I have found is that many deficits we attribute to candidates are actually problems with the questions or the interview process itself. All too often, it is easier to say someone is not a “good fit” than to admit we just don’t want to face the truth they might challenge us with. Insecure leadership, by the way, is Kryptonite to the goal of making the best hires for students.
Thank you for reading Closer Than You Think. This post is public so feel free to share it.
So, let’s imagine…
We have done the hard work of developing a shared vision and mission. All key stakeholders can articulate the preferred future (vision) they are trying to achieve. There is a simple profile of an ideal educator and a description of a successful student after they leave our system. That vision has been used to develop an equally effective mission, which guides the values and behaviors of daily practices. People within the school understand what needs to be done and why. They can demonstrate healthy attitudes and speak to how their daily efforts connect to the big picture.
Groups, who are comfortable identifying their biases and appreciate mutual accountability, come together to plan lessons, set goals, and hire new teachers. There is healthy questioning, confronting, advising, and encouraging from all team members creating a synergistic force. With all of this in place, we are in great shape to make wise hiring and evaluation decisions regarding employee performance. It is almost utopian, but there is still a real threat.
One potential, albeit quiet and subtle, saboteur is left to address. It is called validation. Validation deals with determining if someone is acceptable or worthwhile, which is operating at a deep level of identity. There is no interview question or hiring process or evaluation report that can accomplish that. There is no place in the education enterprise that serves the purpose of validating an individual. It is not appropriate.
The truth is, if you are in educational leadership for any length of time, you are going to break someone’s heart. You will be perceived as the person who crushed someone’s dreams or denied them an opportunity to impact the world.
Some people will realize you don’t actually hold that much power over them. Your hiring decision or your evaluation report does not define them, and they know it and they can walk on in life secure in who they are. There are others, though, who are seeking more than encouragement and constructive feedback about what they do. They are seeking validation for who they are. Hear me, you cannot give it to them! You are not powerful enough to make them finally see themselves differently in their parent’s eyes. You are not smart enough to rewire their brain to accept who they are.
School leader, you cannot use the hiring or evaluation processes to validate another human being. It is impossible, which is why you cannot do it. Worse, it makes the students you serve a secondary factor instead of the primary reason for your decisions, which is why you should not attempt to do it.
There is a fine line between seeking healthy affirmation and using kids to gain self-worth, but make no mistake, there is a line. It is not fair to make our students carry the burden of making us feel like we are enough. Our identity is ours to receive in our relationship with our Creator. It is strongly embedded in abundant grace and unconditional love from the only Perfect Being, and yes, it can be nurtured in family and community, but it is not enhanced or detracted by our job. Our vocation is an avenue to express our identity, but it is not what forms our identity.
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit closerthanyouthink.substack.com/subscribe