The Altitude Problem: Why Smart Boards and Heads Still Talk Past Each Other

Imagine a board meeting. The agenda includes a discussion about the school's new community partnership initiative. The head has prepared a robust presentation about why this will better prepare students for the future and increase student engagement. She shares partner profiles, staffing challenges, and budget implications. Following the presentation, discussion ensues. Some trustees dive into questions about specific partner choices and why some were chosen and not others, while others question how this positions the school against competitors. The board chair struggles to keep the conversation productive as it ping-pongs back and forth between operational details and high-level strategy. The head laments that they are getting too bogged down in operations, but doesn’t know how to redirect.

Sound familiar?

This scenario plays out in board rooms across the country, and it's not because boards and heads don't care about the work—it's because they're having the wrong conversations at the wrong altitude.

The Intelligence Partnership Schools Actually Need

The most effective board-head relationships function as intelligence partnerships, where information flows purposefully to support decision-making. But here's what most schools miss: this kind of partnership requires an explicit agreement about conversational altitude.

Think of it this way. When you're flying, altitude determines what you can see and what you need to focus on. At 30,000 feet, you see the big picture—weather patterns, mountain ranges, major cities. At 10,000 feet, you can make out neighborhoods, traffic patterns, specific landmarks. On the ground, you see individual buildings, street signs, and people.

Board conversations need the same altitude clarity.

Strategic Level (30,000 feet): Mission, vision, and long-term institutional direction. Questions like: Does this initiative align with our school's core purpose? How does this position us for the next decade?

Tactical Level (10,000 feet): Policy, resource allocation, and medium-term planning. What policies need to be in place? How should we allocate resources? What risks need governance oversight?

Operational Level (Ground level): Day-to-day implementation and specific procedures. How will this be implemented? Who will be responsible? What are the timelines?

The problem isn't that boards should never discuss operational details—it's that they need to know why they're discussing them and what they're supposed to do with that information.

Having sat on both sides of the table – as a head and as a trustee – I understand the concern of heads with board members who overreach into operations. At the same time, when board members are tasked with long term sustainability and strategy, it’s impossible to successfully plot a path forward without understanding current operations.

Two Modes, Same Partnership

Effective boards operate in two distinct modes, and the best board chairs help their boards move consciously between them.

Sense-Making Mode: Sometimes boards need operational detail to understand strategic implications. When enrollment is declining, for instance, the head might need to share specific data about inquiry patterns, conversion rates, attrition, and competitor actions. The board needs this ground-level intelligence to grasp the strategic landscape.

The altitude agreement here might sound like: "We're going to dive into operational details for the next 20 minutes so the board can better understand the elements of this strategic challenge. We're here to comprehend, not to manage implementation."

Decision-Making Model: When boards shift to governance decisions, they operate primarily at policy and strategic levels. They approve directions, allocate resources, and establish parameters—they don't manage implementation. The above-named enrollment challenge might lead to board decisions about marketing budget increases, the need for an attrition study, or strategic positioning changes.

The altitude agreement clarifies: "Now we're moving to governance decisions. We'll focus on strategic direction, policy directions, and resource commitments, trusting the administration to handle implementation details."

Making It Work: Practical Implementation

Before the Meeting Board chairs and heads should review agendas through an altitude lens. Add a simple notation to each agenda item: Are we here to understand or decide? At what altitude should this conversation primarily occur?

Noting for the board – on the agenda – what it is that the chair and the head want to get out of the discussion increases the chance that will successfully happen. It also means that the chair and the head are aligned on expectations.

During the Discussion The magic happens when someone can say: "I think we're mixing altitudes here. Are we trying to understand the problem or make a governance decision?"

Here are some altitude agreements that actually work:

For a Financial Challenge:

• Sense-making: "Let's start at ground level. Walk us through the specific revenue and expense trends so we understand what's driving this challenge."
• Decision-making: "Now let's move to the tactical level. What policy decisions do we need to make about budget parameters and spending authority?"

For a Strategic Initiative:

• Sense-making: "Help us understand the operational requirements and competitive landscape before we consider strategic implications."
• Decision-making: "At the strategic level, does this initiative align with our mission and advance our long-term positioning?"
  

The Pitfalls That Sink Good Intentions

Even schools that embrace altitude agreements can stumble. Here are the most common traps:

The Operational Rabbit Hole: Boards get lost in implementation details and lose sight of governance responsibilities. The fix? Time-bound operational discussions: "We'll spend 15 minutes understanding the operational context, then shift to governance decisions."

Strategic Fog: Discussions remain so high-level that boards can't make informed decisions. The solution is ensuring adequate sense-making before decision-making: "Before we can make strategic decisions, we need to understand the ground-level realities."

Altitude Drift: Conversations unconsciously shift between levels without acknowledgment. Anyone should feel empowered to call an altitude check: "I think we've shifted from understanding to decision-making. Can we clarify our altitude?"

Why This Actually Matters

When my colleagues and I work with schools struggling with board-head relationships, the presenting problem is often described as "communication issues" or "trust problems." Dig deeper and you'll find altitude confusion is often at the root.

Trustees may feel overwhelmed by operational details they don't know how to use. Alternatively, they don’t get enough operational detail to make sense of the challenge and hence don’t feel informed enough to make decisions. Heads can feel micromanaged when they're trying to provide context. Both sides end up defensive, and the school suffers.

Altitude agreements change this dynamic fundamentally. Boards gain clarity about their role in each conversation. They can engage with operational details when they need context without feeling responsible for managing implementation. Heads can share necessary information without fearing micromanagement.

The result? Meetings become more efficient. Decisions become more thoughtful. And both boards and heads can contribute their expertise at the appropriate level without overstepping.

Making the Shift Sustainable

Here's the thing about altitude agreements: they work best when they become natural language in your board culture, not forced jargon that feels artificial.

Start simple. Board chairs and heads should model altitude clarity in their own interactions. Board members should feel comfortable requesting altitude clarification without it feeling like a bureaucratic procedure.

The goal isn't rigid adherence to altitude categories—it's a conscious choice about conversational purpose. Sometimes discussions legitimately need to move between altitudes, but these transitions should be explicit and purposeful.

In an era of increasing complexity in independent school leadership, altitude agreements offer something schools desperately need: a way to honor both the board's fiduciary responsibility and the head's executive authority while creating space for thoughtful collaboration.

The most mission-aligned schools are those where boards and heads operate as true partners, each contributing unique perspectives at the appropriate altitude. When trustees understand their role as strategic decision-makers who occasionally need operational intelligence, and when heads see boards as governance partners who require context for wise decisions, schools benefit from leadership that is both informed and appropriately bounded.