In a school group, it’s easy to see every school as equal and to try to manage them through the same strategic lens.
That is a logical approach, but, in reality, schools across a group are often at very different stages of development and require very different management.
Recently I visited three campuses in the same group within the same month. Same brand. Same strategic plan. But the atmosphere on each site told a very different story. It got me thinking about in the context of schools and how it can help to refine your approach.
The Go-go school (growth with overload)
School A was buzzing. Enrolment rising. New programmes launching. Exam results trending upwards. You could feel the momentum in the corridors.
In the weeks before the end-of-term review, the building felt like a command centre. By 7am laptops were open and coffee cups lined the staffroom table. Teams huddled over shared documents, tweaking wording and chasing missing evidence. Corridor conversations around trackers and targets. By evening, the messages were still coming: “Is the action plan updated?” “Who’s presenting?” “Can we pull the data again?”
It worked. It always works. But that was the issue. The school didn’t run on systems - it ran on heroics.
You could see the patterns:
- Leaders solving problems personally.
- The same names appearing on every issue: “Ask her, she knows.”
- Staff busy, but unclear on priorities.
- Initiatives stacking up faster than routines could stabilise.
From the outside, Go-go schools look dynamic. Internally, they can be fragile. If one or two key people are absent, progress slows. Dependency forms around central “hub” figures. Fast decisions, yes. But also single points of failure.
The positives? Energy, ambition, risk-taking.
The concerns? Burnout, inconsistency, institutional memory living in people’s heads.
The leadership task here isn’t to slow growth. It’s to turn heroics into habits:
- Build simple, repeatable routines that protect quality.
- Spread “costly functions” so that no one person holds all the knowledge.
- Protect teacher planning time like a budget line.
Go-go schools need focus and delegation more than inspiration.
The Prime school (high performance without drama)
School B felt different. Calm. Coherent. Confident.
Exam season was busy, but not frantic. The invigilator schedule wasn’t rebuilt three times. Students knew where to be. Departments were moderating work with quiet clarity.
In one meeting, teachers reviewed anonymised scripts: “What counts as strong analysis here?”, “What feedback would move this further?” No theatrics. Just professional dialogue.
What struck me wasn’t brilliance. It was about practices being repeatable. Even when senior leaders were off-site, planning still happened. Support systems still functioned. Middle leadership was strong. Teacher-to-teacher collaboration was embedded.
If you removed senior leadership from a network, the school would still be connected. That’s resilience.
The positives? Stability, trust, consistency and shared responsibility.
The concerns? Comfort, incrementalism and the slow drift into “we’ve found our formula”.
Prime schools don’t collapse suddenly - they plateau quietly.
The leadership challenge here isn’t to fix dysfunction. It’s to prevent stagnation:
- Keep innovation alive through small, time-bound pilots.
- Remove unnecessary processes early (bureaucracy grows silently).
- Keep listening to student experience, not just headline results.
Prime schools need disciplined innovation, not disruption.
The Aristocracy school
School C was impressive on paper. Beautiful website. Immaculate documentation. Policies fully aligned. Meetings frequent.
During a timetable crunch, there was no panic. There was a process: emails, approvals, documentation. Everything was courteous. But nothing fast.
You could sense:
- Decisions were taking longer than the issue required.
- New ideas were being “noted” and then parked.
- Collaboration was becoming compliance.
- Teachers were spending more time evidencing work than doing it.
Often an Aristocracy school increases control to preserve quality. But beyond a certain point, control reduces quality. Energy shifts from improving learning to providing alignment.
The positives? Stability, brand strength and procedural clarity.
The concerns? Risk-aversion, slowed decision-making and quiet disengagement.
The leadership move here isn’t about more systems. It’s permission to move:
- Cut paperwork and replace it with professional dialogue.
- Make innovation safe: pilot, learn, refine.
- Involve staff in decisions that affect teaching.
- Recentre conversations on learning, not optics.
An Aristocracy school needs trust restoration more than oversight.
Three schools with the same values
What struck me most was that all three campuses shared the same strategic plan. Yet each required different leadership medicine.
A quick diagnostic check:
- If leadership stepped away for two weeks, would collaboration continue?
- Does knowledge live in people or in routines?
- Is control helping learning or replacing it?
Group strategy fails when it assumes that all campuses need the same intervention.
- Go-go needs focus and system-building.
- Prime needs disciplined innovation and simplification.
- Aristocracy needs trust, speed and safe experimentation.
None of these stages are “good” or “bad”. Each has strengths. Each carries risk.
The leadership question isn’t “Which stage are we?” It’s “Are we leading for the stage we’re in?”
Ildar Iliazov is head of projects, IT and marketing for Light Group of Schools in Kenya. He was previously a school principal for a school in the group in Mombasa
