No one leader can be expert in all areas of school life, which is a belief the Three Strands of Leadership guidance seeks to dispel, says Sam Henson.
Our education system has, at times, relied far too heavily on “heroes”. And sure, we all love a hero – but every hero, from Marvel to history books, comes with a bruising origin story. The cost is always high.
In education, that cost has too often fallen on school and trust leaders, with society expecting them to be superhuman; expert in pedagogy, finance, HR, estates governance, the lot.
It isn’t fair, it isn’t wise and it certainly isn’t sustainable. If we want a healthy system, we need to stop pretending heroism is a viable leadership model.
I recently heard a brilliant headteacher speak about loving their role – and surviving it. Their secret? Refusing to be a “martyr to exhaustion”.
This line nails the spirit of the guidance we have created with the Institute of School Business Leadership and the Association of School and College Leaders, the Three Strands of Leadership.
This isn’t radical. Plenty of thriving organisations already work this way. But it does challenge some of the sector’s most entrenched assumptions about where power and expertise should really sit.
The omnipotent leader myth
Research paints a pretty clear picture: 73 per cent of school leaders say workload is harming their mental health. Many feel stretched well beyond their expertise.
MAT CEOs tell us the same thing: genuine culture change only happens when people understand what their role is and isn’t for.
The problem isn’t individual leaders; it’s the long-standing belief that one person can, or should, do everything.
Modern education just doesn’t work like that. Research shows heads and CEOs often struggle to delegate tasks they’ve always owned, while business professionals are still sidelined from decisions where their expertise would make a huge difference.
We like to think the “hero head” era is fading. But for many schools and trusts, it’s still very real.
The debate is clouded by the sheer diversity of the sector. Leading a small rural primary is nothing like leading a 40-school trust spread across regions.
Many trusts have already accepted this by building innovative central teams or appointing CEOs with operational or financial backgrounds. These roles don’t replace educational leadership; they recognise it as one specialism among several, not a solitary superpower.
Three equal partners
The three-strands model treats governance, educational leadership and business leadership as equal, interdependent parts of one system.
Governance sets direction and holds the organisation to account; educational leaders drive pedagogy and improvement; business leaders keep the place sustainable and functioning.
But the barriers to joined-up leadership aren’t just structural, they’re cultural.
We still undervalue business expertise in education. Nearly 60 per cent of school business professionals say they’ve had no career development conversations at all. Many are shut out of board-level or senior strategic discussions, despite bringing expertise the organisation can’t function without.
Emma Balchin, the NGA’s chief executive, argues this approach is “not only important but fundamental to a well-functioning system”.
When governance, education and business leadership work in genuine partnership, “the system is stronger, more coherent, and better placed to deliver for pupils and communities”.
This takes more than warm words. It needs deliberate action: a truly shared vision and values across all three strands, clear communication between them, joint accountability, and talent development that values every form of expertise equally.
A liberating vision
At its heart, the three-strands model offers a genuinely liberating view of school leadership. It widens accountability and lets leaders focus where they add the most value. It recognises that lasting excellence comes not from heroic individuals but from weaving together different forms of expertise.
With a white paper and new accountability frameworks on the horizon, we have a real chance to embed this thinking. It’s not about forcing every school or trust into the same shape; the model works whether you’re a maintained school or a large MAT.
It’s about accepting a simple truth: no single voice or mindset can meet the challenges our schools face.
Pupils deserve leadership that draws on every insight available. The evidence shows this approach works. The only real question is whether we’re willing to put it into practice.
Your thoughts