In our Wellbeing Around the World series, we speak to leaders across the globe to see how they’re nurturing positive staff wellbeing, whatever challenges they may face.
In this article, we’re closer to home, in London, as we talk to Barry Mansfield, director of Halcyon London International School in Marylebone, to find out about an innovative approach to management that aims to boost staff autonomy - and, in doing so, their wellbeing as well.
Why does staff wellbeing mean to you as an international school head?
Staff wellbeing is important wherever you are, but international schools are full of people who have moved away from their own culture and family.
Therefore, there’s greater cultural dislocation; a risk of loneliness and a lack of integration, which is usually exacerbated by language barriers; and often anxiety about how essential services function - like medical care or how landlords operate.
Staff are often on short-term contracts: some see this as a fixed period away from home and therefore the investment in “making it work” in that culture might be limited. Others come with a more open-ended approach, but sometimes are disappointed or find that this wasn’t for them. Everyone is different, and international schools need much more wraparound support for staff.
Many international school packages include all costs for accommodation, medical insurance, flights to/from home and extensive support to do things like set up bank accounts or transfer driving licences.
More from the Wellbeing Around the World series:
When I worked in Kenya, the Japanese International school was considered a “hardship” post, so teachers had extensive support from the embassy. This included a chauffeur to drive them to work everyday.
In London we don’t quite need the same structures as if we were working in developing countries, but we still need to be mindful that many staff do not have family support networks close by or old friends to help out.
Even staff who appear entirely at home may find it difficult at times. I worked for 27 years outside the UK, so returning after all those years was not always easy.
School often becomes much more central in our lives because it is full of people like us - people who are maybe not quite aligned with either their own culture or the culture outside the front door.
What wellbeing initiatives have you introduced in your role?
If we characterise wellbeing as having purpose and meaning in one’s life - as having agency and feeling fulfilled - the best decision we made was to eliminate the head of subject role.
Instead, we identify intended learning impacts each year and appoint a project leader to explore and develop this to fruition.
It’s outcome-orientated and time-limited.
It means that each year the six or seven project leaders could be different colleagues; everyone gets the opportunity to put their hand up and contribute - to shape our school and make a difference. And the people who take on these tasks are the best people for the job, so it’s super effective.
Staff also get to see a huge range of voices in leadership roles.
An example might be a learning outcomes project - mapping essential outcomes in every subject and every grade, and having these available throughout our planning software.
Usually, heads of department would be asked to do this, whether they liked it or not, or were good at it (not every HoD is equally good at every task).
This way we get someone who’s really ready for the task - and the whole process develops leaders, so it’s excellent CPD.
How did this idea come about?
With a frustration about systems coming before people, and a lack of courage to address this. If we ask why we should have HoDs, then the answer is usually because we’ve always had HoDs.
Every task in their job description could be shared out somewhere else or made mobile.
Different colleagues can lead subject team meetings, and when that colleague happens to be the best person to examine data, then we talk about data.
When it’s resource management, it’s someone else. It requires people to take responsibility and be brave, but the rewards are tremendous for everyone.
If you believe in distributed leadership, which is a key driver of staff wellbeing, then you have to shake up the box.
How involved were staff in this work?
The decision to not have HoDs was mine, but every process in the creation of project leaders belongs to others.
Leadership will decide the final projects for each year - the intended learning impacts we want - but staff suggest new ideas or challenge the way we might understand issues.
Staff get to co-author their project brief and negotiate how the project will operate. Sometimes - for really new initiatives - none of us knows the answer and the research process helps us all learn together. Staff lead workshops for the whole community.
It really is a very collaborative process.
How was this initiative rolled out on a practical level?
We were a new school, so we could make this structural decision from the ground up: we never had heads of subject to phase out. It might be harder to sell this idea when it means someone loses their position, and their sense of purpose and wellbeing.
I think some schools might be so data-driven (rather than data-informed) or so wedded to accountability structures that run through this traditional middle management level, that it might be very difficult to see how to effect such a change.
In that case, maybe reduce the power of these roles, and redirect resources to project leaders. In our school, this group meets together to support each other and to be a part of shaping school culture; it replaces the HoD forum.
That change in power dynamics may be hard to make wholesale but it could be incremental.
Finally, all project leader roles are open to all staff; maybe some HoDs would put their hand up to do this instead. It’s more interesting, is more creative and has more influence.
What was the impact and how did you measure this?
Staff have told me that it’s nice to have autonomy over their own professional development - that it keeps them happy and motivated in the workplace. Taking on a leadership role gives them a chance to align their interests and expertise with their impact at the school.
In our annual survey, staff gave Halcyon a score of around 90 per cent when asked about whether it welcomes their input into its operation and inspires them to be the best they can be in their role.
Measuring it officially is not so easy - it’s just one metric among many in retention rates or other survey data. But when staff leave, they do often go on to leadership positions in other schools, which seems to underline the skills it develops.
Furthermore, external audits - such as commentary from Ofsted or NEASC - highlight the collaborative nature of our school that projects like this feed into.
Barry Mansfield is director of Halcyon London International School in Marylebone, London
