Big fish in a small (Lower Tier 3) pond vs. small fish in a Big (Tier 1) Pond

secondplace
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 12:40 pm

Re: Big fish in a small (Lower Tier 3) pond vs. small fish in a Big (Tier 1) Pond

Post by secondplace »

@sid

I think this is a sensible approach that honours and values current staff.

But, of course sometimes it's necessary to go outside the organisation.
PsyGuy
Posts: 10789
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Discussion

Post by PsyGuy »

Honoring and valuing current staff doesnt mean anything if leadership and ownership dont value it. The position that current staff would like to be in a favored position for advancement when the opportunity arises is just a want. It doesnt mean that an internal candidate is better or superior in even a general way. More often an IS will go for an external candidate because they want new vision, or perspective, or just a new face. Maybe there are a lot of ITs in the IS that want the job and promoting one of them over others is just going to cause problems with unhappy ITs who didnt get the job.
Those values are often more important and significant than ITs within an IS who feel they should get a preference for advancement, because they want a promotion.

Being promoted from a HOD to senior leadership (AP/VP/DP) followed by executive leadership in a tier 1 school just requires too many planets to be in alignment to be realistic in the vast majority of cases.
Heliotrope
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Discussion

Post by Heliotrope »

> Being promoted from a HOD to senior leadership (AP/VP/DP) followed by
> executive leadership in a tier 1 school just requires too many planets to
> be in alignment to be realistic in the vast majority of cases.

I've seen it happen at multiple schools.

And what do you mean when you say 'Honoring and valuing current staff doesnt mean anything if leadership and ownership dont value it'?
As in 'If they pour a glass of water on your couch it gets wet, unless they don't pour it'?
PsyGuy
Posts: 10789
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Reply

Post by PsyGuy »

@Heliotrope

Ive seen people win the lottery to.

The ITs that agree with the approach of promoting internally have a bias towards internal promotion, because they want to be promoted internally.
Illiane_Blues

Re: Reply

Post by Illiane_Blues »

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> Ive seen people win the lottery to.
>
> The ITs that agree with the approach of promoting internally have a bias
> towards internal promotion, because they want to be promoted internally.

If Heliotrope has seen it happen at multiple schools that's a lot of lottery wins for a single person.
At the majority of my schools they favored promoting from within too.

I do not want to climb the ladder myself but I still agree with the approach of promoting internally if there is a good internal candidate - as someone mentioned: a 'known quantity' that has proven to be a fit.
PsyGuy
Posts: 10789
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Reply

Post by PsyGuy »

@Illiane_Blues

No its not. The handful of experiences and observations of @Heliotrope doesnt make it a lot, nor does it rise to the level of common.

A "known quantity" is one possible goal in recruiting a leader. You dont always or even most of the time want a known quantity if you want change or something different. Its one avenue if your looking for a successor thats going to tow the status quo, which an IS may want, but they are just as likely not to want that. Youre also assuming an IT will be the same when they advance to leadership, they might but they might not. A known quantity may perform very differently under a change in environment. Its just your claim that a known quantity is better or advantageous because you claim it to be.
Heliotrope
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Reply

Post by Heliotrope »

PsyGuy wrote:
> No its not. The handful of experiences and observations of @Heliotrope
> doesnt make it a lot, nor does it rise to the level of common.

And you saying that "it happening is like winning the lottery" is based on what?


> A "known quantity" is one possible goal in recruiting a leader.
> You dont always or even most of the time want a known quantity if you want
> change or something different. Its one avenue if your looking for a
> successor thats going to tow the status quo, which an IS may want, but they
> are just as likely not to want that. Youre also assuming an IT will be the
> same when they advance to leadership, they might but they might not. A
> known quantity may perform very differently under a change in environment.
> Its just your claim that a known quantity is better or advantageous because
> you claim it to be.

Plenty of internal candidates will want change if thats what admin is after. Sometimes it's the even reason they will apply. Other internal candidates will continue the status quo. You can select the candidate that best fits what you want.
But if I was recruiting for an SLT position and I didn't have an outstanding internal candidate that would fit the direction we want to go, I would certainly look outside, or I might interview both internal and external candidates. But if it's a tie between an external and an internal candidate, I would then go with the known quantity.

Perhaps leadership changes some people. I haven't observed dramatic and unexpected changes in the people I've seen move up, but I'm sure sometimes it happens. But I'm saying that someone you know will generally be easier to predict than someone you don't know.
sid
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:44 am

Re: Reply

Post by sid »

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Illiane_Blues
>
> No its not. The handful of experiences and observations of @Heliotrope
> doesnt make it a lot, nor does it rise to the level of common.
>
> A "known quantity" is one possible goal in recruiting a leader.
> You dont always or even most of the time want a known quantity if you want
> change or something different. Its one avenue if your looking for a
> successor thats going to tow the status quo, which an IS may want, but they
> are just as likely not to want that. Youre also assuming an IT will be the
> same when they advance to leadership, they might but they might not. A
> known quantity may perform very differently under a change in environment.
> Its just your claim that a known quantity is better or advantageous because
> you claim it to be.

Reminds one of Vicky Pollard. Not just the ridiculous non-arguments, but the grammar and vocab too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxCPj40eFNc
mysharona
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:25 am

Re: Big fish in a small (Lower Tier 3) pond vs. small fish in a Big (Tier 1) Pond

Post by mysharona »

I think there are valid arguments to both sides and I have been in both positions, though I guess I wasn't a huge fish in the small pond. However, I was able to do things in a small school and have an impact on student life and learning that I couldn't have in a big pond. Being a small fish in a big pond also has its advantages, namely being able to fly under the radar when necessary.
cms989
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: Big fish in a small (Lower Tier 3) pond vs. small fish in a Big (Tier 1) Pond

Post by cms989 »

Speaking only in terms of career advancement, it's better to be a small fish in a Big Pond. There you are getting real experience in a school that operates to an international standard.

Having worked in lower tier 3 schools, they are very seat-of-your-pants and/or based on local norms that are not going to transfer to other places. Moreover, you are not building valuable professional contacts because tier 3 ownership/leadership are usually locals not tuned in to the international school circuit. These people either will not or can not be valuable in vouching for your skills and abilities. So your head of department position is really just in name only, which while not completely useless will not be as valuable as working your way up in a Tier 1 situation.

That said, good school =/= good job. Tier 3 can be nice for the lack of oversight and generally letting you get on with the job. Given a preference I would prefer to work at a laid back tier 3 school that paid well.
PsyGuy
Posts: 10789
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Reply

Post by PsyGuy »

@Heliotrope

We disagree.

@cms989

HOD isnt really leadership, its junior leadership but its not senior leadership and any kind of senior leadership even if your not successful is going to be marketable and have utility; allowing the IT to obtain better leadership positions, until the time they are successful and the experience is of interest to the upper tier ISs.
Post Reply