{"id":2587,"date":"2022-01-08T06:23:50","date_gmt":"2022-01-08T12:23:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/educationalrenaissance.com\/?p=2587"},"modified":"2023-05-06T10:26:35","modified_gmt":"2023-05-06T15:26:35","slug":"good-to-great-measuring-the-greatness-of-a-school","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/educationalrenaissance.com\/2022\/01\/08\/good-to-great-measuring-the-greatness-of-a-school\/","title":{"rendered":"Good to Great: Measuring the “Greatness” of a School"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Like many educational leaders who are familiar with books on leadership and management, I am greatly indebted to Jim Collins\u2019 Good to Great <\/em>(New York: Harper Business, 2001) for my understanding of how to take an organization to the next level. In this #1 bestseller, Collins identifies through longitudinal research the seven characteristics of business outliers who jumped from good to great while their comparison peers did not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

A few years later, Collins wrote a short sequel, this time targeting a nonprofit audience, entitled Good to Great and the Social Sectors<\/a> <\/em>(2005). In this monograph, Collins thinks through how the seven characteristics apply to nonprofits like churches, hospitals, charities, and schools. He is careful to note that the goal for nonprofits is not to pretend they are businesses, but rather, to become \u201cgreat.\u201d He writes, \u201cWe must reject the idea\u2013well-intentioned, but dead wrong\u2013that the primary path to greatness in the social sector is to become \u2018more like a business\u201d (1). The solution, he believes, is to leave modes of mediocrity behind and replace them with habits of greatness. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this article, I will explore what Collins has to say about making the jump from good to great in schools. In particular, I will explore the first of five issues Collins suggests educational leaders might encounter as they seek to apply the seven characteristics of great companies in their schools. This is the issue of defining \u201cgreat\u201d and calibrating success without traditional business metrics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seven Characteristics of \u201cGreat\u201d Companies<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To begin, let me briefly define the seven characteristics of companies that made the jump to greatness in Collins’ research. Collins and his team studied twenty-eight companies, eleven of them qualifying as \u201cgreat\u201d companies in contrast to the other seventeen. To distill the characteristics, his team of researchers carefully studied what the eleven great companies all had in common that distinguished them from the comparison companies (7). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The results of the research are the following characteristics:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Level Five Leadership:<\/strong> Leaders with a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will<\/li>
  2. First Who, Then What:<\/strong> Getting the right people on the bus before finalizing the business model<\/li>
  3. Confront the Brutal Facts:<\/strong> Unwavering faith in the future of the business coupled with the relentless pursuit of current reality<\/li>
  4. Hedgehog Concept:<\/strong> Getting clear on the core business through reaching the center of three concentric circles (see below)<\/li>
  5. Culture of Discipline:<\/strong> A work culture blend of integrity, humility, ambition, and entrepreneurship<\/li>
  6. Technology Accelerators:<\/strong> The careful selection of technology to advance the company<\/li>
  7. The Flywheel:<\/strong> Trusting the slow process of doing the right things to build momentum over time<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

    It is interesting to think that the secret to greatness could be boiled down to seven relatively simple characteristics. And yet, this is exactly what Collins and his team discovered. Of course, applying these principles is easier said than done. There is a reason why the companies he studied were true outliers. But the silver lining is that any organization, including schools, can increase effectiveness and get on the path to greatness through the careful study and implementation of these organizational characteristics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Five Issues for Social Sectors <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    With the business framework of Good to Great<\/em> in view, let us begin to think through how the seven characteristics might apply in social sectors, like schools. When engaged in this task, Collins observes five issues that tended to come up in light of the difference between for-profits and not-for-profits (3).\u00a0Here they are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. Defining \u201cGreat\u201d<\/strong>: Calibrating success without business metrics<\/li>
    2. Level 5 Leadership<\/strong>: Getting things done within a diffuse power structure<\/li>
    3. First Who<\/strong>: Getting the right people on the bus within social sector constraints<\/li>
    4. The Hedgehog Concept<\/strong>: Rethinking the economic engine without a profit motive<\/li>
    5. Turning the Flywheel<\/strong>: Building momentum by building the brand<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      In the remainder of this blog, I will focus on the first issue: defining \u201cgreat\u201d and calibrating success without traditional business metrics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Defining \u201cGreat\u201d: Inputs and Outputs<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      In business, the outputs for evaluating effectiveness are fairly straightforward: financial returns and achievement of corporate purpose. A business at the end of the day is evaluated by its financial margins. In the social sector, however, it is significantly more complex. You cannot measure the success of a nonprofit by the size of the budget, efficiency of expense ratios, or breadth of donor circles. To be sure, these can serve as helpful metrics for governance purposes, but they do not get at the heart at gauging whether the mission is being achieved successfully.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      To evaluate \u201cgreatness\u201d in nonprofits, Collins advises to make this crucial distinction between inputs and outputs. In the corporate world, money serves as both an input and output of greatness. Companies are evaluated both by how much money enters the company (the input variable), and, more importantly, how much money is produced (the output variable). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

      For example, if I were to start a snow cone company, I would certainly need an input of cash. The more capital I possessed up front, the more ice, syrup, and freezer storage I could acquire for production. The goal, of course, is the output of cash\u2013how much revenue I can generate from sales. Therefore both monetary input and output play a key role in measuring the greatness of my snow cone aspirations, but especially monetary output.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Like my hypothetical snow cone company, an independent school requires an input of cash to cover expenses\u2013items like payroll, facilities, and curricular materials. There will also be an an output of cash\u2013the revenue generated from tuition primarily. But the difference between selling snow cones and educating students is that, for the latter, the tuition dollars themselves do not serve as the measuring stick for how well the school is achieving its mission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Delivering on the Mission<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      So if money is not an appropriate output for measuring the greatness of a school, then what is? Surely there are ways to measure greatness. As Collins writes, \u201cTo throw our hands up and say, \u2018But we cannot measure performance in the social sectors the way you can in business\u2019 is simply a lack of discipline (7). So how do we do it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      For Collins, it is the effectiveness by which the nonprofit delivers on the mission and makes a distinctive impact. For schools, therefore, it is how effective the school achieves its mission of preparing its students for whatever kind of impact they hope to have in the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

      Still, measuring mission delivery can be difficult. To repeat, we cannot simply reduce mission effectiveness to a dollar amount. Collins advises nonprofits to use both quantitative and qualitative means, acknowledging that all measurement indicators are flawed to some degree. So quantitative metrics like test scores, faculty evaluations, parent surveys, annual giving, financial margins, and re-enrollment metrics can and should be used, but we must acknowledge their limitations in telling the full story. The key, writes Collins, is not to find the single perfect indicator, but to land on a consistent and intelligent method of assessing your output results and then tracking your trajectory with rigor (8).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Boards and leadership teams, therefore, need to get clear on what is meant by great performance for their particular school<\/em>. What is the baseline for delivering on the mission? What are the big-picture goals and how do you know if you are making progress? These are the questions school leaders need to be asking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Three Outputs of Greatness<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      Collins suggests three ways for nonprofits to measure outputs of greatness relative to their mission. \u201cSuperior Performance\u201d measures the results and efficiency of the organization. \u201cDistinctive Impact\u201d gauges the unique contribution the organization is making to the communities it touches. And \u201cLasting Endurance\u201d tracks exceptional results over a long period of time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Applying this framework to schools, here is one way to put meat on the skeleton:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Superior Performance: Results and efficiency on the school\u2019s mission<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n