The High-Performer Who Is Destroying the Department

This case sets results against people and process, and the leadership judgement is that tolerating the behaviour is neither ethical nor sustainable - even though it is tempting because the results are real and the stakeholder pressure is significant.

Competing pressures:

• Results and reputation. 92% pass rate is a genuine asset. Losing her could harm outcomes and provoke parent and board reaction.
• Staff wellbeing and retention. Formal concerns have been raised, creating a legal and ethical duty. Three transfer requests and a leaver are concrete harm, not rumour.
• Precedent. How you handle this signals to all 80 staff whether concerns are taken seriously.
• Power dynamics. Her board connection and parent relationships mean this will be contested.

The ethical judgement: results do not license harm. A leader who protects a high-performer's behaviour because of results teaches the organisation that bullying is acceptable if you deliver. The cost is borne by the teachers who leave, the students taught by demoralised staff, and the culture you are trying to build. The 92% is also her results - it is not evidence that her methods are the only way to achieve them, and it may mask dependence on one person, which is itself a risk.

Course of action:

1. Take the formal concerns seriously and document them. Review the raised concerns, confirm what was investigated, and ensure procedural fairness for all parties.
2. Address behaviour directly, not results. In the performance management conversation, be explicit: her outcomes are recognised and valued; the concerns about how she leads her team are a separate and serious matter. Use specific, evidenced examples (the NQT's departure, the survey data, the transfer requests) rather than generalities.
3. Set clear expectations with support. Define what good leadership looks like in her role - how feedback is given, how new staff are inducted, how disagreements are handled. Offer coaching or leadership development. Make clear that improvement is expected and will be reviewed.
4. Manage upwards and outwards. Brief the board chair factually and confidentially, framed around leadership standards and staff retention, not personality. Prepare for parent questions with a consistent line: 'We value strong outcomes and we hold all leaders to the same professional standards.'
5. Protect the department in the interim. Ensure the teachers who raised concerns have a route to raise issues safely.

What you must not do: let the results buy silence, or act so abruptly that you create a procedural vulnerability. The judgement is firm, evidenced, and fair - and it applies to her as it would to anyone.

The process must be evidenced, specific, supportive, and time-bound - and it must separate outcomes from conduct.

1. Preparation.

• Gather the evidence: staff survey data for her department, exit information from the NQT and transferees (anonymised), documented concerns, and any prior conversations.
• Check policy and any legal/HR requirements for performance processes in your jurisdiction. Involve HR early.
• Define the standards expected of a head of department - drawn from your leadership framework, not invented for her.

2. The conversation.

• Open by recognising genuine strengths: results, subject knowledge, longevity.
• State the concern plainly with examples: 'Three staff have requested transfers citing public criticism; our NQT left the profession; your department scores 31% on feeling supported.'
• Avoid euphemism. 'Some people find you direct' is not feedback; it invites defensiveness.
• Listen. There may be context - workload, personal circumstances, a belief that she is protecting standards. Understanding does not mean excusing, but it shapes the support offered.

3. The plan.

• Written, specific, and time-bound: what will change (e.g., how feedback is delivered, how new staff are supported), how it will be evidenced (staff feedback, observation of department meetings, retention), and by when (review at mid-term and end of term).
• Support: leadership coaching, possibly a mentor from another school, and clarity that you will help her succeed.
• Consequences: state clearly what happens if there is no improvement, in line with policy. Ambiguity here undermines the whole process.

4. Monitoring and fairness.

• Mid-term review with evidence, not impressions.
• Give her the opportunity to respond and to have representation if your process allows.
• Keep records.

5. Wider system.

• Do not rely on one conversation. Build department-level feedback mechanisms (e.g., anonymous pulse surveys) so that concerns surface earlier next time.
• Review how you induct and support new teachers so that a single difficult manager cannot end a career.

Why this is likely to work: it is specific enough to act on, fair enough to survive challenge, and supportive enough that a capable leader can change. If she cannot or will not, the process has created a defensible record for the next step - and demonstrated to the whole staff that standards apply to everyone.