SSFS HOS leaving

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the HR department do? It would seem employees would file complaints about personnel before departing… so many great teachers left.

It was such a cult of personality that probably would not have done any good.

I’m pretty sure they had at least 3 different HR Directors through that position during RG’s tenure. That is also a red flag.

At this point I don’t think anyone was missing all the red flags over the years, the bot just wouldn’t (or couldn’t) do anything about it.

It was pretty obvious to anyone who cared that there were issues with RG's leadership. Not entirely sure why the BOT took so long to understand that, but here we are...having to rebuild as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the HR department do? It would seem employees would file complaints about personnel before departing… so many great teachers left.

It was such a cult of personality that probably would not have done any good.

I’m pretty sure they had at least 3 different HR Directors through that position during RG’s tenure. That is also a red flag.

At this point I don’t think anyone was missing all the red flags over the years, the bot just wouldn’t (or couldn’t) do anything about it.

It was pretty obvious to anyone who cared that there were issues with RG's leadership. Not entirely sure why the BOT took so long to understand that, but here we are...having to rebuild as a result.

Do you know how Quaker process works? There were members of the BOT who were concerned, and there were members who weren’t…until the issues were beyond just staffing issues/toxic work environment…and even then it took time to get everyone on board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the HR department do? It would seem employees would file complaints about personnel before departing… so many great teachers left.

It was such a cult of personality that probably would not have done any good.

I’m pretty sure they had at least 3 different HR Directors through that position during RG’s tenure. That is also a red flag.

At this point I don’t think anyone was missing all the red flags over the years, the bot just wouldn’t (or couldn’t) do anything about it.

It was pretty obvious to anyone who cared that there were issues with RG's leadership. Not entirely sure why the BOT took so long to understand that, but here we are...having to rebuild as a result.

Do you know how Quaker process works? There were members of the BOT who were concerned, and there were members who weren’t…until the issues were beyond just staffing issues/toxic work environment…and even then it took time to get everyone on board.

Do YOU know how any work environment process works with a toxic leader? Its the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Quaker process aims for unity or consensus rather than majority. For Quakers like myself, this process is appreciated. However, to non Quakers the process can appear slow and quite honestly it certainly can be slow. It's not easy to reach consensus.

It's up to you how much you want to hold the BOT accountable for the RG mess. In hindsight I took wish they had acted sooner. I think however, they were hampered to some degree by a lack of full awareness because so many families and staff were understandably reluctant to speak up. I hope one of the many lessons learned here is to make sure all SSFS community members ALWAYS feel safe enough to ask questions and speak up. about concerns.

[Anonymous]

But the problem wasnt that people were afraid to speak up. Who were they going to speak to? RG himself was in the way of any feedback. So if anyone feels the issues were with him where were you going to go? Teachers couldn’t go around him, parents could not go around him. Parents were told not to seek out the board. RG had eliminated the direct reports to the board and instead had everyone simple provide input to a document RG controlled and he provided that (or not) to thr BoT. Even those who were deeply concerned had no way to voice that. RG stifled everything and if he knew you did not agree with him, he came after you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the HR department do? It would seem employees would file complaints about personnel before departing… so many great teachers left.

It was such a cult of personality that probably would not have done any good.

I’m pretty sure they had at least 3 different HR Directors through that position during RG’s tenure. That is also a red flag.

At this point I don’t think anyone was missing all the red flags over the years, the bot just wouldn’t (or couldn’t) do anything about it.

It was pretty obvious to anyone who cared that there were issues with RG's leadership. Not entirely sure why the BOT took so long to understand that, but here we are...having to rebuild as a result.

Do you know how Quaker process works? There were members of the BOT who were concerned, and there were members who weren’t…until the issues were beyond just staffing issues/toxic work environment…and even then it took time to get everyone on board.

So what finally pushed the BoT into action? What was “the issues were beyond just staffing issues/toxic work environment”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quaker process aims for unity or consensus rather than majority. For Quakers like myself, this process is appreciated. However, to non Quakers the process can appear slow and quite honestly it certainly can be slow. It's not easy to reach consensus.

It's up to you how much you want to hold the BOT accountable for the RG mess. In hindsight I took wish they had acted sooner. I think however, they were hampered to some degree by a lack of full awareness because so many families and staff were understandably reluctant to speak up. I hope one of the many lessons learned here is to make sure all SSFS community members ALWAYS feel safe enough to ask questions and speak up. about concerns.

I hope that people will back off on blaming the BOT- this is not unique to SSFS or Quakers.

I was on the BOT of an independent school during a HoS removal process and it took years to make it happen. Years! For us it took a long time for full awareness to spread, it took a long time for people to realize that their experience was not unique to them, and it took a long time for people to overcome the complications of social pressure and relationships and other things to be brave enough to commit to change. And even then, and even in a non-consensus environment, it took us two board years to make actual change.

For people who come from corporate backgrounds, the pace of change in a private school environment can be maddening. That’s a deliberate feature in independent school governance and a safeguard against rash action and sudden turmoil, but it’s exhausting if you have a child at the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quaker process aims for unity or consensus rather than majority. For Quakers like myself, this process is appreciated. However, to non Quakers the process can appear slow and quite honestly it certainly can be slow. It's not easy to reach consensus.

It's up to you how much you want to hold the BOT accountable for the RG mess. In hindsight I took wish they had acted sooner. I think however, they were hampered to some degree by a lack of full awareness because so many families and staff were understandably reluctant to speak up. I hope one of the many lessons learned here is to make sure all SSFS community members ALWAYS feel safe enough to ask questions and speak up. about concerns.

I hope that people will back off on blaming the BOT- this is not unique to SSFS or Quakers.

I was on the BOT of an independent school during a HoS removal process and it took years to make it happen. Years! For us it took a long time for full awareness to spread, it took a long time for people to realize that their experience was not unique to them, and it took a long time for people to overcome the complications of social pressure and relationships and other things to be brave enough to commit to change. And even then, and even in a non-consensus environment, it took us two board years to make actual change.

For people who come from corporate backgrounds, the pace of change in a private school environment can be maddening. That’s a deliberate feature in independent school governance and a safeguard against rash action and sudden turmoil, but it’s exhausting if you have a child at the school.

You make good points though my biggest concern about the board (admittedly different people than currently) was why they hired him in the first place and approved of him continuing to run his consulting firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quaker process aims for unity or consensus rather than majority. For Quakers like myself, this process is appreciated. However, to non Quakers the process can appear slow and quite honestly it certainly can be slow. It's not easy to reach consensus.

It's up to you how much you want to hold the BOT accountable for the RG mess. In hindsight I took wish they had acted sooner. I think however, they were hampered to some degree by a lack of full awareness because so many families and staff were understandably reluctant to speak up. I hope one of the many lessons learned here is to make sure all SSFS community members ALWAYS feel safe enough to ask questions and speak up. about concerns.

I hope that people will back off on blaming the BOT- this is not unique to SSFS or Quakers.

I was on the BOT of an independent school during a HoS removal process and it took years to make it happen. Years! For us it took a long time for full awareness to spread, it took a long time for people to realize that their experience was not unique to them, and it took a long time for people to overcome the complications of social pressure and relationships and other things to be brave enough to commit to change. And even then, and even in a non-consensus environment, it took us two board years to make actual change.

For people who come from corporate backgrounds, the pace of change in a private school environment can be maddening. That’s a deliberate feature in independent school governance and a safeguard against rash action and sudden turmoil, but it’s exhausting if you have a child at the school.

You make good points though my biggest concern about the board (admittedly different people than currently) was why they hired him in the first place and approved of him continuing to run his consulting firm.

That’s something we’ll never know. But I am sure they didn’t think it would this way. Perhaps they thought RG would not ignore his hos duties and only care about profiting his business. I’m sure he did tell them during the hiring process what his real intentions were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quaker process aims for unity or consensus rather than majority. For Quakers like myself, this process is appreciated. However, to non Quakers the process can appear slow and quite honestly it certainly can be slow. It's not easy to reach consensus.

It's up to you how much you want to hold the BOT accountable for the RG mess. In hindsight I took wish they had acted sooner. I think however, they were hampered to some degree by a lack of full awareness because so many families and staff were understandably reluctant to speak up. I hope one of the many lessons learned here is to make sure all SSFS community members ALWAYS feel safe enough to ask questions and speak up. about concerns.

I hope that people will back off on blaming the BOT- this is not unique to SSFS or Quakers.

I was on the BOT of an independent school during a HoS removal process and it took years to make it happen. Years! For us it took a long time for full awareness to spread, it took a long time for people to realize that their experience was not unique to them, and it took a long time for people to overcome the complications of social pressure and relationships and other things to be brave enough to commit to change. And even then, and even in a non-consensus environment, it took us two board years to make actual change.

For people who come from corporate backgrounds, the pace of change in a private school environment can be maddening. That’s a deliberate feature in independent school governance and a safeguard against rash action and sudden turmoil, but it’s exhausting if you have a child at the school.

You make good points though my biggest concern about the board (admittedly different people than currently) was why they hired him in the first place and approved of him continuing to run his consulting firm.

This is my concern as well. This was a ludicrous thing to do particularly when you look at the triangulation between RG's consulting firm, his ties to the NAIS and the accreditation process, and the diversity audits recommended by NAIS and "sold" by RG's group. Double employment should always be a red flag in terms of how much time and effort the person will be stretched between. This particular double employment was highly suspicious leaning towards unethical. And it was no doubt highly lucrative for RG. The board should have known better from the start!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quaker process aims for unity or consensus rather than majority. For Quakers like myself, this process is appreciated. However, to non Quakers the process can appear slow and quite honestly it certainly can be slow. It's not easy to reach consensus.

It's up to you how much you want to hold the BOT accountable for the RG mess. In hindsight I took wish they had acted sooner. I think however, they were hampered to some degree by a lack of full awareness because so many families and staff were understandably reluctant to speak up. I hope one of the many lessons learned here is to make sure all SSFS community members ALWAYS feel safe enough to ask questions and speak up. about concerns.

I hope that people will back off on blaming the BOT- this is not unique to SSFS or Quakers.

I was on the BOT of an independent school during a HoS removal process and it took years to make it happen. Years! For us it took a long time for full awareness to spread, it took a long time for people to realize that their experience was not unique to them, and it took a long time for people to overcome the complications of social pressure and relationships and other things to be brave enough to commit to change. And even then, and even in a non-consensus environment, it took us two board years to make actual change.

For people who come from corporate backgrounds, the pace of change in a private school environment can be maddening. That’s a deliberate feature in independent school governance and a safeguard against rash action and sudden turmoil, but it’s exhausting if you have a child at the school.

You make good points though my biggest concern about the board (admittedly different people than currently) was why they hired him in the first place and approved of him continuing to run his consulting firm.

This is my concern as well. This was a ludicrous thing to do particularly when you look at the triangulation between RG's consulting firm, his ties to the NAIS and the accreditation process, and the diversity audits recommended by NAIS and "sold" by RG's group. Double employment should always be a red flag in terms of how much time and effort the person will be stretched between. This particular double employment was highly suspicious leaning towards unethical. And it was no doubt highly lucrative for RG. The board should have known better from the start!

This wasn’t leaning towards unethical. This WAS unethical. Whether it was outright illegal, I don’t know.

Bot was naive or just plain oblivious. I don’t know which. When RG 1st came we didn’t know he had these ties. If we had it would have been really uncomfortable for us. It was when things started going south and we started to research RG we found his online footprint and that he really disturbed us. But like everyone else has said - who could we speak to about these concerns? There was no avenue. Contacting the bot was actively discouraged. Finally we had our last straw after he kept spinning why the tuition was going up so erratically, while repairs were pending and teachers were quitting left and right.

The final straw was the 24-25 increase and accompanying set of random spin as to why. We didn’t re enroll. So glad we took that step. No headaches to deal with now.

[Anonymous]

Independent school board member here. Just as it’s a process to remove (and hire) a head, it’s a big effort to hone boards to be effective, strategic, and fiscal stewards — and support their one employee, the head of school. Board members are volunteers who turnover, so it’s dependent on the head to grow/tend to the partnership. Sadly, schools have seen mis-hires, brief tenures, and even lack of interest in head work itself these days. Some rookie heads also assume this job w/o finance, advancement, governance, operation skillset so are learning on the fly. Yet, this is the core of the job! No easy solution. The school reconciling all of this as a lack of fit and now working hard to get it right will be a start.

[Anonymous]

If you're so glad you took that step, why are you on this board still interested? You withdrew and I hope that works well for you. Those with no stake who are here to be gleeful or simply pile on are irksome or insecure with their current situation.

[Anonymous]

Was a search firm used to hire him ? If so which one. Usually all that vetting is done and done well by well paid search firms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quaker process aims for unity or consensus rather than majority. For Quakers like myself, this process is appreciated. However, to non Quakers the process can appear slow and quite honestly it certainly can be slow. It's not easy to reach consensus.

It's up to you how much you want to hold the BOT accountable for the RG mess. In hindsight I took wish they had acted sooner. I think however, they were hampered to some degree by a lack of full awareness because so many families and staff were understandably reluctant to speak up. I hope one of the many lessons learned here is to make sure all SSFS community members ALWAYS feel safe enough to ask questions and speak up. about concerns.

I hope that people will back off on blaming the BOT- this is not unique to SSFS or Quakers.

I was on the BOT of an independent school during a HoS removal process and it took years to make it happen. Years! For us it took a long time for full awareness to spread, it took a long time for people to realize that their experience was not unique to them, and it took a long time for people to overcome the complications of social pressure and relationships and other things to be brave enough to commit to change. And even then, and even in a non-consensus environment, it took us two board years to make actual change.

For people who come from corporate backgrounds, the pace of change in a private school environment can be maddening. That’s a deliberate feature in independent school governance and a safeguard against rash action and sudden turmoil, but it’s exhausting if you have a child at the school.

You make good points though my biggest concern about the board (admittedly different people than currently) was why they hired him in the first place and approved of him continuing to run his consulting firm.

100% agree that the consulting thing is weird but so many in education are doing stuff like that now that it can be seen as being a “thought leader”. In fact, there is a lot of pressure on Boards, even in NAIS materials, to ensure that their HOS is engaged in education leadership outside the school and engaged with the broader independent school community. It’s hard to walk the line between finding someone who is doing that well and still keeping them focused on their school, and you don’t know it’s not working until it isn’t.