Michael Pain, Chair and Founder, Forum Strategy
“The pressing incentive for even bigger trusts appears to be more about mitigating the impact of diminishing money and resources, rather than nourishing the system and attending to and adapting to the profound issues of our times.”
As the number of academies now reaches more than fifty percent of schools, we must reimagine and re-conceptualise what is meant by ‘growth’ – not simply for our organisations’ sustainability, but to avoid a mimetic crisis in the academy trust system itself. Michael Pain provides his Summer ‘Long Read’ for our reflection over the break.
One of my favourite stories from the classroom is when a class of young pupils were asked the question: ‘When there’s a pen full of sheep with 18 sheep in it, and seven escaped, how many were eventually left in the pen?’ Every child wrote down eleven except for one girl, who said ‘none’. The teacher told the girl that they hadn’t quite understood the question, and the child told the teacher they hadn’t quite understood sheep.
The answers can often seem too easy and too simple on paper, but when applied to the practicalities of the everyday world they take on a very different meaning. Many many intelligent people can look at the same issue the same way, but when a few look at it differently, we can see the issue for what it is. The same kind of sentiment can now be applied to the perception of ‘growth’ in the academy trust sector.
Now, I’ve been advocating for sustainable trust growth for almost ten years, and highlighting the risks of the culture of ‘growth for growth’s sake’. Bigger numbers for the sake of bigger numbers is the first warning sign in Marianne Jennings’ seminal work ‘the 7 signs of ethical collapse’; and the impact of such a culture can be seen from The Great Depression of the 1930s, right through to the Credit Crunch of 2008. As Jennings writes: “If you’re getting those numbers because you’re better, you’re smarter, and you’re working harder, more power to you… But managers have to be careful not to be sending the message that higher numbers must be achieved at any cost.”
That is why I have always been horrified to see numerous white papers lead on ‘finger in the air’ ambitions for trust size and scale, detached from any sophisticated philosophy for what sustainable trust growth means or the outcomes it is intending able to enable and achieve. These superficial ambitions and numbers do, however, stick in people’s minds, and they have a consequence. As this government considers a new white paper for the Autumn, it must be very mindful of this and the unintended consequences it can cause.
“Bigger numbers for the sake of bigger numbers is the first warning sign”
In the very early days of the trust sector, taking on more schools and achieving bigger numbers as a result, became readily equated with leadership impact. Subsequently (and inevitably), we soon saw much failure amongst many of the rapidly expanding larger trusts who had developed neither the necessary collective commitment, capacity, or systems to sustain those numbers.
Soon organisations like Forum Strategy and the National Governance Association reset the tone through mindful research and thinking; and we had a period of very mindful growth based on philosophies like the 7 pillars of improvement at scale ; the narrative of academy trusts at the heart of their communities; ‘Being The CEO‘, and, of course, pure accountability. The work of many trust leaders – including so many of our Forum Strategy members – inspired this and helped drive it forward. And in a field where failure had become so common, those outliers who ‘cracked’ successful large-scale expansion at that time, such as Sir Steve Lancashire, contributed hugely to rethinking around what was meant by sustainable growth. This commitment continues to pervade both our #TrustLeaders networks and the Being The CEO programme.
Yet, as we arrive in the Summer of 2025, I am sensing the creeping return to this notion of size and scale as an end in itself – driven by an (understandable) onus on financial efficiency and what feels like a limited pool of people in the system with the genuine skills and expertise to lead school improvement at scale. It requires us, like the girl in the classroom, not to rush to the most obvious answer on paper, but to consider the real-world implications of growth simply by ‘bigger numbers’ for our trusts, schools, staff and communities. Let’s take the implications for the system first, before considering the risks to our organisations.
PART 1: The system-level considerations around ‘growth’
This focus on bigger numbers as an end in itself has always presented organisational risks, and these have become more stark; as I will come onto. But, there are now systemic risks too. A trust system that has for so long seen size and scale as a significant measure of success is now reaching a tipping point. During this last academic year, we reached the point where more than fifty per cent of all schools (and almost all secondaries) are now academies. It leads us into a position whereby the limitations of growth as simply a ‘numbers of schools game’ becomes ever more apparent, yet we have a cultural inertia that sustains its prominence. As the number of schools able to join trusts slowly diminishes in the years ahead, growth risks becoming even less about growth based on a sense of what’s best for improvement, innovation, and community need – and more as a sense of competition based on the pursuit of efficiency as end game. Indeed, growth – if not redefined or reimagined quickly – could readily become about the sector turning in on itself and undermining the very conditions that it depends upon to succeed in the decade ahead.
The mimetic tendency to imitate can be seen across so many aspects of life. The quest for bigger numbers in the interests of scale and efficiency as the key driving force, could quickly turn into a dysfunctional systematic mimetic crisis – where too many are blindly chasing the number of schools as an outcome, rather than sustainable system evolution that nourishes both the schools within a trust and contributes to the success of the wider system. Why is this such an issue? Well, as we have seen in our work on system leadership in the trust sector – the role of locality or place-based leadership, the development of trust-led specialist and advisory services, and trust to trust support is becoming ever more crucial. As I outlined in my keynote speech at the recent National #TrustLeaders Symposium this Summer, we now have the incubation of deep innovation at trust level – and in many cases this is taking place in smaller and medium-sized trusts that are supporting the learning and improvement of the wider system. The need to identify these trusts and to disseminate their work – whilst protecting the conditions that allow that innovation to continue to emerge – is increasingly essential. Whilst growth to many of these trusts is about specialism, enhancing provision, and serving others in the system through sustainable models, not simply bigger numbers, as I also said in the speech, as the watering hole gets smaller (read less money and resource in the system), the animals begin to look at one another rather differently (read, lack of collaboration and competition for resources and the scale). This is potentially putting the eco-system of our trust system at risk at exactly the time it needs to be enabled and encouraged, because some still see the size and efficiency of organisations as more important than diversity and innovation as the most important outcome for the system. We’ll come back to the conflict in these values – all of which have merit on their own – later.
So, redefining growth as ‘sustainable growth with purpose and care’ that serves to nourish the wider sector (see my final analogy!) is therefore not only about individual organisational sustainability and efficiency, it is about the very future of our collaborative self-improving system, at a time when complexity and change is greater than ever, and resources are tighter than ever. Yet, that lasting cultural inertia is sending the wrong messages. This comes from the government, from some sector bodies, and from some trust boards and CEOs. There is still a prevailing sense – implicit or at times explicit – that equates growth and size of a trust with ‘success’. An example of this implicit message is the very ‘top heavy’ representation of larger trusts on the DfE’s new CEO advisory group this Summer. Whilst there are some exceptionally talented leaders and successful trusts on the group, it tells only half the story of a system that is evolving in other interesting ways. The Darwinian view is that it is not simply the largest animals that survive as a species for longest (they have as much chance as any others, not more), but that it is usually the nimble and readily adaptable that succeed in the long run. I see large trusts doing fantastic work (and some where growth is risky – see later), and I see many many other medium- and smaller-sized trusts doing innovative and ‘game changing’ things in our sector – in areas such as AI, SEND, sustainability, community cohesion, workplace readiness – that all of us – including the larger trusts – need to encourage, support and learn from. This isn’t about large or small, it’s about vision and values, quality, capacity, nimbleness and adaptability. It’s also about how genuine and impactful collaboration in the system right now reflects this desire to solve system and societal issues – together, and, which must be distinguished from the kind of rather superficial collaboration that is too often motivated by a desire to ‘take over’ or ‘dominate’ another entity.
“in evolutionary terms, it is not simply the largest animals that as a species survive longest (they have as much chance as any others, not more), but that it is usually the nimble and readily adaptable that succeed in the long run”
We cannot put at risk a self-improving, community-centric, responsive, and innovative education system because of a narrow desire to simply create bigger organisations – even if that is dressed up as efficiency driven. We fall into the trap of our sector’s destiny being determined by finances and scale/efficiency as an end in itself, especially at a time when we should be reinforcing to the government that an investment in education – including its adaptation and evolution to meet the needs of society and the next generation – is the biggest investment we can make. It’s also worth adding that tough financial times can give rise to some of the greatest periods of innovation and improvement – such as in the wake of the Great Depression in the 1930s. This isn’t a time for undermining the innovative, the adaptable, and the nimble as they take on some of the most profound issues facing our sector and society itself.
“A mimetic crisis is when people become undifferentiated… there are no more social differences…”
— René Girard
So, my first conclusion is this – the growth of trusts is limited, it is becoming more limited, as we reach a tipping point in the system in terms of fewer non-academies than academies. As we reach this, it is necessary that our system’s view of growth must evolve if we aren’t to see a mimetic crisis where system evolution sees the bigger simply eating up the smaller. This risks distorting some of the natural conditions of our eco-system that generates much of the most innovative and responsive work taking place – and has huge potential, through intelligent collaboration, to nourish the system as a whole.
I know there is a massive argument for efficiencies right now, but a bean counter mindset cannot undermine the sector’s wider conditions for innovation and adaptability at such a pivotal time. Those advantages come from diversity of trusts and through retaining some of the evolutionary advantages that systems – as well as species – need to progress. Nimbleness, adaptability, and difference matter in a healthy ecosystem, and that’s why medium- and small- trusts, often embedded in their communities, have such a crucial role to play in helping the whole system progress through collaboration.
PART 2: Organisational considerations around growth
Why do we need to be cautious about a fixation on more and more schools as the barometer for successful trusts? A. Because we still know little as a sector about how successful trust growth is achieved in a climate of tighter funding and less political support; and B. Because there are some real risks to the concept of growth for growth’s sake being the key driver. Let’s now explore both.
On point A, it is worth remembering that many of the larger trusts in our system currently got to a place of size and scale in a period of greater funding and, some would fairly argue, in a context of great political ‘buy in’ to the trust model. It was genuinely a lot easier to do it, and to spend money or to get political support to overcome resistance, barriers and overcome mistakes. Times have changed since then. I believe the road to scale is one that in the current context – without huge funding or political will – is far more nuanced and laced with far more potholes than before. The somewhat cosseted growth that came with money and big political support is over, the stark realities and perils of growth are here, and we need to beware of them as they cannot be bulldozed through with the help of more cash or power. Trusts growing today need to do more to seek the lessons from other sectors, especially entrepreneurial leaders that achieved sustainable growth without financial help or political support. And, the government needs to be tapping to this too in how it helps the sector to achieve this.
“The somewhat cosseted growth that came with money and big political support is over, the stark realities and perils of growth are here, and we need to beware of them”
Today, growth should, and needs, to be much more driven from within the system, as this is key to ensuring that converging organisations such as trusts and new schools are a best fit, and with growth driven through the power of community engagement and support (which reflects trust’s ability to speak to, respond to and meet need). This is a much more authentic and viable type of growth, as we have written on extensively here: ‘Making the case for joining a thriving trust’: https://forumstrategy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Forum-Strategy-Thriving-Trust-Thinkpiece-1-Making-The-Case-.pdf
Point B, however, is the main focus of this ‘long read’. What does sustainable growth – with purpose and care – look like in this context? How do we ensure that growth is a ‘means’ and not an ‘ends’ and that we avoid many of the organisational and system level pitfalls that growth for growth’s sake presents. This matters more than ever.
Many readers will have heard of the ‘Peter Principle’ in terms of individual careers and jobs. It’s essentially the notion that someone is promoted until they reach a point in which they fail, then it’s game over. This is important, because it applies to every stage of growth – the next step could be the one of failure, the one where the wheels fall off, because we were ill-prepared or over promoted. This, applied to the context of trusts as organisations, requires trust leaders – at whichever stage of growth they are at – to take a diligent view of organisational design and development, as well as some other key cultural considerations.
This exercise begins with confronting what leads to failure. The ABCs of systemic or organisational failure are usually Arrogance, Bureaucracy and Complacency. I will therefore use the remainder of this piece to expand and explore these through the lenses of five key risks: the risk of mercenary growth, the risk of hubris, the risk of rigidity, the risk of losing sight of the fundamentals, and the risk of rising tension in values.
Lets begin with the risk of mercenary growth:
1. The Risk of ‘Mercenary Growth’
Jeff Bezos talks about missionaries and mercenaries. Missionaries tend to succeed in organisational development and growth because they are driven and overt about a rationale for growth that deeply connects with their own and their organisations’ deepest purpose. This is what connects with all those people in our organisations who simply do not care about how many schools we’ve got – they care about the quality and the impact of the offer, often to a defined community that they are invested in and belong to. This is why Bezos’ focus on being a ‘customer obsessed’ organisation has led to such success. He never started out with the intention of being one of the largest companies in the world – it was a consequence of the missionary approach. ‘Mercenaries’, as he described them, on the other hand, tend to lead with the numbers – size and scale. It simply doesn’t connect. It’s ego fulfilling. And unfortunately, in this sector we still fall into the ‘mercenary trap’ of seeing too many introduce themselves and their organisations defined by their size and scale, rather than their quality and purposes. How many CEOs still introduce themselves by how many schools they’ve got? Yet this ‘numbers obsession’ prevails and the DfE and some sector organisations still reinforce it.
“More and more trusts see growth as the ever-improving quality and depth of their provision and partnerships”
Where I see genuinely sustainable growth, it is a genuine sense of mission, vision and values that defines ambition. That leads to some interesting outcomes. One trust I know has made it clear that its mission is to ensure that every child and young person across their city thrives today and throughout their lives and gets access to all the support and opportunities they need in doing so. Sure, growth is required to do that, but it’s growth with purpose – growth beyond the city is a ‘red line’; and growth is not only seen through the prism of simply taking on more schools, it is seen as the development of partnerships with other key players in the city, it is in becoming an employer of choice with an ever more expert and committed workforce, it is seen as the development of ‘in house’ services that support areas such as entrepreneurial skills and mental health; and it is seen as providing relevant support to the wider sector in order to support those services become sustainable and to keep learning from others – to the benefit of pupils in that city.
More and more trusts see growth as the ever-improving quality and depth of their provision and partnerships, in the service of pupils across a defined area, than they do purely in numbers of schools. This is the first reason why the size of a trust alone is in and of itself a poor measure of successful organisational development. In an era where mental health, skills development, technology and sustainability are all pressing issues, many smaller and medium-sized trusts are specialising in response to community and system needs and becoming ‘cutting-edge’ and sustainable providers of services to the wider system in doing so. They have a lot of answers that many larger trusts could learn from. And they have a clear purpose for growth whereby size and scale are just one of a number of considerations.
Some trusts are motivated to specialise and then provide provision to the wider system, believing they are filling a gap in provision or expertise, as this example from one of Forum Strategy’s CEO network members highlights: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/in-praise-of-small-mats-why-bigger-doesnt-always-mean-better/. This drives their growth agenda and keeps them grounded in what they are good at, and where they intend to have impact, and leads to growth and sustainability as a consequence. It is a different mindset and a legitimate one when considering the needs of the system. Government quickly needs to recognise this wider notion of growth, as does the sector as a whole – each one of us.
This sustainable approach to growth can also be measured, yes through headline results over time, but also, in a more nuanced way and in a way that reflects the mission – through pure accountability. In a world where ‘what gets measured gets done’, pure accountability helps nudge our organisations in the right direction, when other mimetic forces in the traditional system drift towards efficiency and narrow considerations of success. This, again, reinforces the ‘customer obsession’ over the ‘competition obsession’ that Bezos considers essential to long-term sustainable growth.
In conclusion here, it’s also worth saying that those leaders who are not able to articulate a clear rationale, and who remain largely accountable for narrow criteria (not least where growth for growth’s sake is the default driver because of cultural inertia) can be readily put at serious risk of making misjudgements in how they scale and with whom. Just ask Mary Ann Jennings!
Consideration: it is really important at this juncture for trust boards and executives to consider what is their underlying motivation for growth? Is it such that it inspires innovation and improvement amongst those we lead and those we partner with, in service to pupils, families, and communities (and possibly the wider system)? Is it such that it ensures clear focus and rationale in those innovation and improvement efforts? Or is it a blind focus on getting bigger – either for the sake of efficiency (where the budget tail is wagging the strategy dog) or pleasing the DfE to ensure survival or prominence!
WHAT IS YOUR MISSION OR ‘WHY’ FOR ORGANISATIONAL GROWTH?
WHAT ARE THE RED-LINES IN TERMS OF THE KIND OF GROWTH YOU WILL NOT EMBARK UPON?
HOW IS YOUR GROWTH UNDERPINNED BY ACCOUNTABILITY TO END USERS, BALANCING IT AGAINST MEETING NATIONAL ‘ONE SIZE FITS ALL’ SUCCESS CRITERIA AND SYSTEM-LEVEL INERTIA?
“We’re not competitor-obsessed, we’re customer-obsessed” Jeff Bezos
This isn’t to say significant size and scale don’t become part of the story. Like Bezos you can be a missionary who ends up leading a very large organisation. But a mercenary approach – that is focused on size alone (which I would say, is most often ego-driven) doesn’t tend to lead to sustainable success, because the conditions that underpin successful and sustainable growth are rarely nurtured. Beware leadership where growth begins with an obsession on bigger numbers and sector position.
2. The Risk of Hubris
As organisations achieve growth and scale, we come to some other risks that may well become inherent and must be avoided. As Bill Gates famously said, “success is a lousy teacher” and it is clear that many organisations and leaders who experience successful growth soon begin to believe that they can’t go wrong. The Icarus Effect creeps in.
How can this manifest itself?
– A CEO who is constantly in the news sharing their successes, but rarely asking questions or contemplating big ideas;
– A CEO and executive who has stopped modelling continuous learning themselves and/ or begins mandating too much at the expense of fostering genuine professional autonomy or expertise amongst their teams;
– An organisation that neglects its internal and external feedback loops, believing the answers lie centrally with a small number of experts. For example, the role of local governing boards in being visible and engaged advocates for their communities becomes diminished or staff or parental surveys become a tick box exercise;
– A board that becomes subservient to the executive team, and fails to challenge or hold to account, or to be drawn upon regularly for its insight;
– The tendency to be drawn into more things – working groups, steering groups, policy initiatives, the ‘opening of an envelope’ – that have little relation to our missionary approach.
Organisational improvement and refinement can take a back seat. As the economist Morgan Housel says on larger animals in his excellent book Same as Ever: ‘top of the food chain status means they usually don’t need to adapt, which is an unfortunate trait when the time for adapting arrives.’ This is the risk that presents leaders of organisations where success is defined by size.
“Predicting the rain is not the same as building the ark – which often needs to happen rapidly and with full and deliberate attention before, during and after each stage of growth.”
Trusts tend to grow because they have been successful at the previous stage of their development – including a smaller number of schools, staff, proximate geographical footprints, and nurtured partnerships. Yet, as with the promotion from executive headteacher to CEO, you may have been rewarded with promotion because of your success in your previous role or stage of evolution, but ironically, it will take us into new and unexplored territory that demands learning continues to an even greater depth – because the risks and stakes just get higher. Leaders who achieve sustainable growth recognise that at each stage diligence and focus is required for getting it right. It’s no time to step back or to be pulled in a range of new and enticing directions because of new found status.
Here lies one of the real issues with growth in and of itself being equated with success. Growth in organisational size in this sector, comes before the capacity for results are secured. Predicting the rain is not the same as building the ark – which often needs to happen rapidly and with full and deliberate attention before, during and after each stage of growth. This is absolutely why experienced CEOs should remain part of strategic professional networks or enrol on CEO programmes with a clear bespoke element – such as high-quality coaching and mentoring. This is key to retaining and honing the adaptability and agility that Housel says we should prize in leaders of larger entities.
Hubris, however, as Jim Collins tells us, tends to quickly lead to the second and most risky stage of decline – the undisciplined pursuit of more. Or, in other words, taking on more than we bargained for.
As one of the world’s most successful business leaders, Warren Buffett tells us: “The difference between successful people and really successful people is that really successful people say no to almost everything.” Too often I see great CEOs experience a moment of significant organisational growth and then end up down a myriad of rabbit holes of distraction or, worse, become exhausted by failing to create the conditions that will lead to their sustained success at a new level of scale and prominence.
We must shift our focus here therefore and see learning and reflection as a precursor to growth, not an afterthought or something we now only provide to others. To know our limits, and not to be ingratiated by a system that will readily pull us in all kinds of directions. How many times have we seen CEOs and trusts take on more because they are lauded by the latest minister or have received favourable coverage? How are these decisions to accept growth made by these leaders and what underpins them? And, once leaders get the numbers, before anything is achieved with them, there is a risk that they have secured the outcome, and their focus begins to dwindle or be drawn elsewhere. As Jim Collins says, we may be able to enjoy the benefits of momentum for a while, but if we see scale as the outcome, the risk of hubris driven by excessive pride is significant:
Great enterprises can become insulated by success; accumulated momentum can carry an enterprise forward for a while, even if its leaders make poor decisions or lose discipline. But hubris—excessive pride that brings down a hero—marks the beginning of the end.”— Jim Collins, How the Mighty Fall
Consideration: Many leading large organisations retain their zest for learning and continuous reflection and improvement. This, again, is driven by their missionary approach to growth, but also to their ability to keep ego and the mimetic tendency of our system to say ‘success is size’ in check. This is leadership, because it resists some of the temptations and conventional, but potentially dangerous, cultural dynamics at play, and remains focused on an even more important end – sustaining high quality outcomes for children and young people, staff, and communities, in an ever-changing world. CEOs who avoid hubris remain focused on learning, because they know the very quality and relevance of their decisions – what they are paid for – depends on it.
HOW AS AN ORGANISATIONAL LEADER ARE YOU MAINTAINING AND MODELLING AN ONUS ON CONTINUOUS LEARNING DESPITE PREVIOUS SUCCESSES?
HOW DO YOU MAINTAIN FOCUS OF TIME, ENERGY AND RESOURCES WHEN DISTRACTIONS AND DEMANDS COME FROM ELSEWHERE?
ARE YOU REMAINING CONNECTED WITH THE SOURCES OF INSIGHT, CHALLENGE, AND INSPIRATION THAT INFORM YOUR ABILITY TO DO THE CORE WORK – MAKING A SMALL NUMBER OF GOOD DECISIONS AT THE NEXT LEVEL?
It is this hubris – driven by a sense of growth for growth’s sake – that leads leaders of fast-growing organisations into the perils of my final two risks…
3. The Risk of Rigidity
As trusts become bigger, with more staff, more sites, more opportunities for efficiency (and for things to go wrong!), quite rightly there is a tendency to centralise some functions and to create more standard operating procedures. This only becomes more so as scale increases. However, within this there is a risk not only that our organisations become ‘brittle’, but also stale as that which is considered ‘best practice’ today, and is mandated across the organisation as a result, slowly becomes outdated and that it fails to transfer to new and evolving contexts. This is a key tension in growth that must be acknowledged and managed – both culturally and through systems.
This concern is captured beautifully by the philosopher E.F.Schumacher in his seminal work ‘Small is beautiful’. He writes, on organisations, that:
“In any organisation, large or small, there must be a certain clarity and orderliness; if things fall into disorder nothing can be accomplished. Yet, orderliness, as such is static and lifeless; so there must be plenty of elbow room and scope for breaking through the established order, to do the thing never done before, never anticipated by the guardians of orderliness, the new, unpredicted and unpredictable outcome of a man’s creative idea.
Therefore, any organisation has to strive continuously for the orderliness of order and the disorderliness of creative freedom. And the specific danger inherent in large scale organisation is that its natural bias and tendency favour order, at the expense of creative freedom.”
The Stepford wives concept is a very real one. And we can delve even further, beyond the restraints, to the psychological impact on organisations of too much conformity and similarity. It is a trap that an ego- or ‘bigger numbers-‘ driven leader can quickly fall into, as they seek to retain sufficient control or security to preserve their reputation and impact. They risk becoming too certain, too rigid about what best practice is, as the world evolves around them.
“Equality is good. Sameness is generally not – unless we’re talking about cars on an assembly line or the consistency of your favourite brand of coffee.”
The philosopher Rene Girrard wrote on how “Equality is good. Sameness is generally not – unless we’re talking about cars on an assembly line or the consistency of your favourite brand of coffee. The more that people are forced to be the same – the more pressure they feel to think and feel and want the same things – the more intensely they fight to differentiate themselves”. This is why I believe that organisations with high conformity – especially in sectors that attract creative thinkers – tend to have higher turnover rates than those that don’t (FOOTNOTE A), especially amongst new generations of professionals. It’s a combination of disempowerment (a lack of genuine agency for creativity that feeds the human spirit) and a lack of trust as leaders become both more remote and more conservative. We will all know organisations like this.
This doesn’t necessarily apply to every aspect of the organisation. There are some things we prefer to be standardised, but not in aspects of creativity. As Warren Buffet once said about the divisional heads across his companies, I allow them sufficient scope ‘to paint their own painting’ – but they also want help in other areas, they don’t mind having ‘a boss on this thing’. These other areas tend to be – and most often should be – in areas such as compliance, administration, accounting, and safeguarding. However, in the context of trusts, it is crucially important for retention, leadership growth and innovation, as David Horn explores here, that they have sufficient agency and ownership – both in their schools and in terms of their relationship with the wider trust.
Buffett and Horn know that leaders need sufficient freedom, to retain them and to maximise their potential. But this applies at all levels of a culture, to an extent. As Julian Richer, the founder of Richer Sounds whose organisation once featured in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest retail outlet by square foot in the world, committed to during his organisation’s growth: “We tell every employee that if they have an idea, they are not only empowered to tell us about it, they have a responsibility to do so. When a new recruit joins us, the biggest item in his or her welcome pack is our ‘What can we do?’ book. This is a fat book of suggestion slips ready for them to fill in, and we also have a dedicated email address if they prefer. So recruits get the message that they not only have a part to play, they have a responsibility to play, in improving our organisation and serving and responding to the needs of our customers as best we can.”
To reinforce this point just a little further, in his book, The Outsiders, a study of some of the most successful CEOs and organisations in history, William Thorndike concluded that operational leaders and those who shaped the organisation’s systems and processes, should be stationed as close to the frontline as possible – within a very nimble and agile central team. In considering this he was referring to multi-billion dollar entities and reinforcing the fact that it is on the frontlines of our organisations that we gain the insights, awareness and inspiration to adapt – including, at times, revisiting the most standardised aspects of our organisations’ work.
In our quest for organisational ‘efficiency’ and ‘order’, especially through growth, we must be careful not to undermine the conditions that bring about enterprise and innovation – which rarely emerges (though is enabled or encouraged) from the centre and so often arises through the freedoms preserved at ‘the edges’. That is especially true right now when the pressure is on to save money and resources, but we also need to harness the improvement and innovation skills of the leaders and professionals in our organisations to address some of the key challenges and opportunities we face.
Consideration: As trusts grow they should consider how they balance the growing tendency (and need) to create alignment in elements such as the curriculum, assessment, and environments; with retaining a commitment to professional agency and freedom at ‘the edges’ that gives rise to innovation and continuous incremental improvement and motivates all staff for the medium- to longer-term. CEOs and boards provide the cultural permission, whilst ensuring disciplined and focused innovation together with systems of support and safety.
AS A CEO AND EXECUTIVE ARE YOU CLEAR ON WHAT IS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE AND WHERE FLEXIBILITY AND ADAPTATION IS SUPPORTED AND ENCOURAGED?
DO YOU PROVIDE MESSAGES THAT GIVE CULTURAL PERMISSION FOR INPUT AND CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK, AS WELL AS DISCIPLINED INNOVATION, THAT CONTRIBUTES TO ADDRESSEDING THE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES OF THE TRUST?
DO HEADTEACHERS FEEL LIKE GENUINE CONTRIBUTORS TO TRUST-WIDE VISION, STRATEGY AND IMPROVEMENT?
ARE CENTRAL SERVICES CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE FRONTLINE SO AS TO ENSURE THEIR SUFFICIENT EXPOSURE AND EMPATHY TOWARDS IT?
HOW DO YOU CELEBRATE AND DISEMINATE EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL IMPROVEMENT AND INNOVATION AS THE TRUST GROWS FURTHER? IS COLLABORATION ENCOURAGED AROUND THIS WORK?
Leaders pursuing growth for growth’s sake can quite readily find themselves clinging onto control through a compliance, overly-standardised and directive culture. In some ways this is necessary to a degree for good governance and improvement at scale; however, there is a limit. Again, organisations pursuing growth as missionaries rather than mercenaries will remain focused on enabling the conditions. improvement and innovation in response to their communities’ needs, retaining the culture and systems that promote the disciplined pursuit of both, which brings me onto…
4. The Risk of Overlooking the Fundamentals of Success
A useful task before embarking on any stage of growth, is to have a clear reflection on what are those elements that have led us to achieve success so far, and what would this growth put at risk or struggle to sustain without adaptation? One clear example from the early days of the trust sector was the dependency on retaining a reliance on those who had been successful headteachers but then struggled to lead school improvement as individuals at scale. They knew what had led to their success so far – their often unique and very individual approach to modelling and driving school improvement practice; what they didn’t consider was that the same approach would be almost impossible – especially across more than two or three schools, or across a wider geographical area. Today we see it with trusts who have some exceptional school improvement leaders and headteachers, but who are not quite clear on where the expertise or capacity is going to come from for the next stage of expansion or growth.
Capacity and expertise are key here. As is geography. Many organisations are fuelled by a clear sense of place. The sense of mission and vision, commitment and collegiality that a sense of local endeavour can generate is realised by many trusts. If growth moves beyond that clear sense of place, it can be challenged both culturally and practically. Culturally, the sense of commonality and identity can be undermined if not managed carefully or without sufficient change management. Practically, critical elements such as the ability to travel between schools, the awareness of the distinctions within local contexts, the ability to undertake shared CPD and joint procurement that is made effective through proximity, or to draw on partnerships with other local agencies, can all become strained or undermined without planning. This is a clear advantage that can be lost through growth – with many unintended consequences.
“If growth moves beyond that clear sense of place, it can be challenged both culturally and practically.”
It’s also important to acknowledge here that getting bigger – with care – can bring new advantages too, if they are understood and therefore enabled thoughtfully. Advantages such as greater visibility for the organisation, and its ability to draw on wider strategic partnerships; the ability to use scale to invest in initiatives such as workplace benefits and even greater specialist expert services centrally; the scope to invest in new services arising from innovative practice locally; and the ability to untap even wider expertise from across a broader group of professionals. The key thing to be mindful of here, however, is, these benefits are rarely the driver for those driven by growth for growth’s sake, and often only genuinely arise as a consequence of mission-fuelled growth, which is where I began this section!
I explore the risks to overlooking the fundamentals, and how growth in numbers is mindfully harnessed to unleash further improvement, in more depth in Schools Week here: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/four-barriers-to-scalable-growth-and-how-to-overcome-them/
Considerations: Be clear and find time to reflect on what are those elements that have led us to achieve success so far. And secondly, consider what fundamentals of success would this growth put at risk or struggle to sustain without adaptation or reimagination of how we do things? This can directly impact on the culture, capacity and processes that enable and drive school improvement – the things that may be taken for granted, especially when relationships are proximate and where is a real depth and history of shared understanding. CEOs retain and secure these fundamentals.
ARE YOU CLEAR ON THE FUNDAMENTAL APPROACHES – CULTURALLY AND SYSTEMICALLY THAT GAVE RISE TO INITIAL SUCCESS AND GROWTH?
AT EACH STAGE DO YOU CONSIDER HOW YOU RETAIN THESE, AS WELL AS ACKNOWLEDGING AND UNDERSTANDING HOW ADAPTATION IS REQUIRED AND MONITORING ITS IMPACT?
ARE YOU HONEST AND OPEN AS AN EXECUTIVE TEAM ABOUT HOW LUCK HAS PLAYED A ROLE IN GROWTH AND HOW THIS COULD LEAD TO BLINDSPOTS AND POTHOLES FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD?
5. Final word: the tension between values.
I am mindful that what I have written here is not simply about overcoming conventional thinking around growth, especially when the drivers are increasingly financial and resource efficiency. It is also between a genuine tension in values – values such as service, collaboration, accountability, value for money,
These are all noble values. The difficult question the sector and many trust boards and executives will need to consider together, through growth, is which values matter most. It is easy to say all of them, but that is not the reality of the world we live in. These decisions necessitate a compromise, and a genuine conversation about whether we are ready to let some values take precedence over others. There is no clear answer to that, but it is the kind of hard conversation every board should be having in the current climate. We are supporting that kind of dialogue as trusts refine their vision and plan their strategic direction.
“The pressing incentive for even bigger trusts appears to be more about mitigating the impact of diminishing money and resources, rather than nourishing the system and attending and adapting to the profound issues of our times.”
I see a system that – if we are not careful – puts service, genuine collaboration and improvement and innovation, at a degree of risk because considerations of efficiency and central oversight become easier if it does so. The pressing incentive for even bigger trusts appears to be more about the impact of diminishing money and resources, rather than nourishing the system and attending and adapting to profound issues of our times. However, I don’t believe that the unintended consequences of achieving efficiency through the blunt instrument of scale alone have been as carefully considered as they need to be. As a system, we could readily end up in a mimetic crisis that results from overlooking the role of diversity of innovation and approach that feeds our collective knowledge and improvement over time. This is about our ongoing nourishment, innovation, and evolution as individual leaders and professionals, as organisations and as a sector, to the benefit of pupils and communities.
In conclusion, I leave you with this thought…which can apply to our system and to your trusts, and one worth recognising through continuous growth…
Rainforests are intricate ecosystems where every organism – no matter how small – plays a crucial role in sustaining the whole. While large trees dominate the canopy, their health and growth are deeply intertwined with the presence and activity of smaller plants, fungi, insects, and animals in the forest’s understorey and soil. The survival and prosperity of towering trees depend not just on sunlight and rainfall, but on a dense web of interactions with the smallest of life forms. These smaller plants and species act as quiet enablers – recycling nutrients, enriching the soil, spreading seeds, and protecting the ecosystem – ensuring that the giants of the forest continue to themselves also grow with careful nourishment.
As a system – as we do for the rainforest – let’s carefully reflect this Summer on what kind of growth AND nourishment our eco-systems need to truly thrive. It’s a conversation we will pick up again at the National #TrustLeaders CEO Conference in September…
Michael Pain is the Chair and Founder of Forum Strategy, author of Being The CEO, and executive coach. He will be speaking alongside a range of contributors at the eighth annual National #TrustLeaders CEO Conference on 18th September on the evolution of the CEO role; and co-leads the Being The CEO programme with Sir Steve Lancashire, which commences with its twelfth cohort in September.
Forum Strategy leads three national networks for trust leaders. You can find out more and join one of Forum Strategy’s networks here: https://forumstrategy.org/our-networks/
FOOTNOTE Employees in strongly hierarchical cultures are significantly more prone to consider leaving, regardless of pay—hierarchy increases turnover intention even when compensation is relatively high: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/15/4/125 ;
Effects of Organizational Culture and Pay Levels on Employee Retention: Focused on Generational Difference; Myeongju Lee; Kyetaik Oh; Hyunok Kim
1. University of York – “Precarity” of general practice nursing undermining retention (Feb 2025): ‘Precarity’ of general practice nursing undermining retention, study finds | Nursing in Practice
