Culture of academic prosperity

Tshwarelo Hosia | Monday July 6, 2026 06:00

Where professional development is limited, schools largely rely on ‘ born leaders’. A lot depends on the agility and prowess of a rare gem of a leader. Gifted leaders tend to do things differently. They are so confident and assured. Rather than endeavouring to build a pipeline of leaders to co-manage school affairs, special and highly talented leaders hardly resist the temptation to rely solely on their own individual abilities. They literally become the alpha and omega of the institutions they are privileged to lead. To them, exceptional abilities and charisma are adequate to help them navigate, with little support, the affairs of schools. Talented leaders can sometimes have trust issues, not seeming to have faith in their charges’ abilities. This can lead to a situation in which they keep their troops on the fringes of power, especially in critical decision-making.

They are confident that they have the ability to provide appropriate leadership and apply their minds properly in the best interests of their institutions. To them, charisma matters the most. Of course, they lead as expected. However, leading does not mean standing alone like an ivory tower. But they sometimes become intransigent, reluctant to consider others’ views. This is because of the belief in the supremacy of their ideas. Strong and highly gifted leaders do not mince words when it comes to advancing students’ cause. They are task masters par excellence. Their relentless focus on classroom instruction usually pays dividends. They are capable of performing ‘miracles’ by turning around the worst-performing schools into the best-achieving schools. Here lies their strength. Nonetheless, they can push so hard that they disregard the human element. This is a limitation that can lead to resentment.

The fact is good leadership is about embracing inclusivity. Carrying the burden of leadership single-handedly may produce desirable results. The vexing question is whether a culture of academic success, mainly championed by one person, can be sustainable. Consider this: Leaders come and go. Once a leader has moved on, it is not always easy to replicate their efforts, especially when the leader did not make any attempt to build institutional capacity or win the team’s confidence. Leaders should never play God. They are not omnipresent. A leader who makes himself indispensable, seen and heard everywhere, cannot build a sustainable school culture. A school should never be identified with the character and exploits of one man. A school’s character should be seen as the sum of the efforts of all the people who work in it. Overreliance on the wisdom of a single person should be discouraged because it is unsustainable. Where there is overdependence on individual brilliance, little effort is invested in institutional capacity to ensure that everyone is given air and space to participate adequately in the management of school affairs. Ideally, a school should perform consistently well. Academic success should never be a flash in the pan. Once attained, it must be sustained. A school should pride itself on providing uninterrupted, excellent, and consistent educational services to all generations of students placed under its care. A number of schools tend to find, by design or accident, temporary moments of accomplishment. More often than not, a school could dominate the charts for two to three years and subsequently experience a dry spell, leading to its obscurity and oblivion. Yes, the fortunes of a school can vary from one year to another. But a dramatic decline of a school that was once at the top is a cause for concern. Oscillating between two contrasting worlds of academic success and failure is very worrisome. A school should endeavour to carve a consistent and reliable character.

Parents pick a school for their children, informed by the school’s own character. But allowing a school’s pendulum to swing to one extreme gives it an identity problem while sending mixed signals to students and patrons. Schools should never suffer from an identity crisis. Sometimes schools momentarily assume the character of their leaders. This is where the fate of a school revolves around the character, charisma, and individuality of an individual. A school that has no character of its own tends to swing from one end to the other depending on who is at the helm. Usually, leaders with near-superhuman attributes play a domineering role, to the detriment of collective participation. It is always difficult to sustain a culture of success developed and masterminded by one man. A one-man show in school administration could be responsible for a school’s disintegration once the strong leader leaves the scene. It is always important for schools to do their utmost best to achieve academic prosperity based on shared principles and values, not just the whims of one single man. A school led by a strong man or woman is often characterised by fear. A “my way, not our way” culture is prevalent in a school led by a strong man or woman. Once the strong leader transfers out or retires, complacency or a rebellious spirit could creep in and undermine whatever good practices had kept the school on top of the world. A school should carve out a consistent, clear character that gives it an identity. It is the responsibility of school principals and their charges to build and sustain a school’s values that promote academic pursuits and the well-being of students. Consistency is paramount. A school should never degenerate to the point of undoing good classroom instruction and governance practices. Sustenance of an organisational culture that works well for students and other members of the school should be at the centre of any school. While leaders have the latitude to tweak the culture of schools they are privileged to lead and align them with their vision, changes which undermine effectiveness should not be entertained without scrutiny.

No leader should be given a blank cheque to undermine whatever was working for a school. Change should not be introduced for its own sake or simply to align with the tastes of a sitting school principal. School leaders have a responsibility to strengthen institutional capacity to reduce reliance on individual wisdom. Good principals make conscious decisions to empower their charges while rendering themselves less needed on a day-to-day basis. This means school leaders with strong management skills should make a deliberate plan to reduce their indispensability. Leaders should be capable of self-replication. Self-replication is a tool for empowerment that grows and sharpens leaders to make noteworthy contributions in a school. Overreliance on the wisdom of one man or woman is a regressive step that denies other members the opportunity to learn and hone their leadership skills. It should be the duty of school principals to devolve powers to other layers to deliberately share the air and space with the rest of the team. Leaders who are almost everywhere, holding keys to every door, are stifling the professional development of their troops in the trenches. School principals are therefore duty-bound to build an enduring and durable legacy. Leaders should not only worry about the present needs of their schools but should cast their nets beyond the now.

Principals should worry about whether their schools would fare better or worse upon their departure. The question is whether the school would weather the storms when one is no longer in the room. It should be the desire and aspiration of school leaders not only to be content with the academic prosperity of the moment but also to build a sustainable culture of achievement.