Anyone familiar with the Victim Triangle knows that “rescuers” often end up sliding into the role of bully or victim without even realizing it. In schools, this dynamic pops up most often during leadership transitions, when people feel anxious or unsure about the future. As board members, you’ve probably seen this before: well-meaning individuals stepping in because they believe the school needs saving.
For rescuers, perception becomes reality. They genuinely believe there’s a leadership vacuum, and they jump in to fix something they think is broken. And yes, transitions can be bumpy. But they can get even bumpier when people rush to put out a fire that the board or current leadership doesn’t believe is actually burning.
Let’s take a familiar scenario: a head of school announces they’re leaving. The board is responsible for choosing the next head and supporting the outgoing one. But as soon as staff members or parents start quietly (or not so quietly) campaigning for a specific candidate, the boards work becomes much more complicated.
Maybe the board already has a strong external candidate in mind. Maybe the board knows the school needs certain skills that a well-liked internal candidate simply doesn’t have. When people begin advocating for their preferred choice, the board suddenly has to manage expectations, rumors, and pressure, often before the search process has even begun.
It’s natural for community members to root for someone they know. But most don’t understand the full scope of the head’s responsibilities: governance, finance, fundraising, academic strategy, and managing a large and complex organization. A beloved internal employee may not have the background needed to run an independent school, no matter how talented or popular they are. Preferring “the devil we know” is human, but it’s not always in the best interest of the school.
This is why clear, consistent communication from the board is essential. Trustees don’t need to share confidential details, but they should explain the process, the timeline, and the competencies the next head will need. When individuals unintentionally interfere, they often need to be gently but firmly educated about the disruption they’re causing and the parts of the process they may not understand.
While it’s healthy to engage the community during a search, boards are wise to remember, and to remind others, that choosing the next head of school is the board’s responsibility alone. A similar challenge arises when the head of school is hiring senior leaders. Internal candidates often express interest during transitions. That is healthy. What isn’t healthy is when groups of employees or parents start campaigning for “their person.” These efforts almost always create tension for the school, stress for the candidates, and unnecessary pressure on the head of school.
Boards should support heads by reinforcing a simple standard: internal candidates should apply individually. If friends or families begin organizing on their behalf, the candidate should be encouraged to ask them to stop. Supporters usually don’t realize the disruption they’re creating, but it can significantly complicate a delicate process.
Occasionally two staff members may propose sharing a leadership role. While some boards might choose a dual-leadership structure (e.g., President and Head of School), that decision belongs to the board, not to employees hoping to design their own shared job. Board clarity here helps prevent confusion and protects the integrity of the school’s leadership structure.
Strong boards and strong heads serve their schools by being clear about roles and boundaries. Managing well-intentioned rescuers is simply part of good governance and leadership. Address rescuers and boundary crossers directly, do it kindly, and then move forward with the work the school has entrusted to you.
