As advisors, one of the most interesting things we encounter is relations among groups within a given school (i.e. intergroup relations). Groups, as we know, sometimes form along departmental lines, shared cultural lines, as well as who has to interact with whom in order to accomplish the work of the school. As anyone who works in a school knows, these groups develop their own norms. By extension, anyone who joins a group adopts those norms and becomes loyal to a group. What becomes fascinating to consultants is when groups end up being at cross-purposes with each other. Downright fascinating. When we look at governance (governing boards) in schools, we often talk about such groups (those at cross-purposes) as factions. Factions tend to render a governing board dysfunctional, sooner or later.
Something we’ve noticed time and again is that factions within governing boards, in the development of their own group cultures, not only take on the larger culture of the society in which they’re located, the day-to-day occupations of the group members, and the school community itself, they also tend to take on a competitive nature, with respect to other real or perceived groups within the governing board. Let’s be clear: this notion of being competitive against other (real or perceived) groups is harmful. It does not increase productivity, based on our experience; what it does (and does it very well) is to pervert motivation.
To state it again: sooner or later, competitive factions will produce dysfunction, when it comes to governing board performance. What is more, a natural consequence of such dysfunction at the governing board level is for it to carry over into the running of the school. In other words, dysfunction begets dysfunction.
The solution, plain and simple, is governing board leadership that a) has a backbone, and b) chooses to exercise it, always adhering to what we know works, when it comes to effective school governance.
