He was brought in to have an impact. He was great with data. He had a firm grip on strategic thinking. He knew about procedures. What he was not so good at was people.
He championed a cyclical style of teaching that incorporated the time to reflect. This was followed by a raft of changes introduced with such swiftness there was no chance for reflection. He was in favour of team work and working groups, groups that he then told what to do and how to do it. One wondered if he'd quite like to tell people what colour pants to wear whilst doing it.
Oh he had an impact. Morale plummeted. One couldn't help wondering how much more impact the necessary changes to data, strategy and procedures would have had on a staff with high morale rather than on a staff whose morale was on the floor.
Many staff voted with their feet. It was the only mechanism left open to them to show their disapproval at his methods. Perhaps he just considered them members of the awkward squad who lacked the drive and determination he was so clearly imbued with. They need not be considered. They were expendable. He must focus on his goal.
At a meeting of other heads he felt hard done to and complained that he felt undervalued. The person he complained to took a breath and said "Perhaps now you can empathise with your staff."
22 September 2012
Duncan Jones's web: