Superheads and academy chain leaders

Once again we read of education leaders - typically, academy chain leaders - earning mega salaries of up to £320,000 per year.  I have a few thoughts about this:

-    some individuals are highly gifted at setting organisations on an upward trajectory.  Their work is so valuable to the organisation - and their skills/talents in such short supply - that they are well worth their very high salaries

-    taking the helm in organisations exposed to high risk and public scrutiny should merit a salary commensurate with such risk.  Individuals' reputations are at stake.  We need to recognise this in the way we pay such people.  High risk should equal high salary

-    these people are directing organisations that have the capacity to bring about long-lasting societal change.  Put in this context, such salaries are relatively modest compared to the increased productivity and benefit to society that they afford

-    the jobs they do are extremely tough.  No one has been able to turn around chronic disadvantage and educational failure without huge effort and time (the pundits say it takes 7 years to turn around a failing school completely).  Success in overcoming such difficulty should be recognised through very high salaries.  We pay brain surgeons a lot of money.  Those responsible for inner city schools/academies should also be paid lots

BUT

-    lasting change in any organisation is more often brought about by distributed leadership and rarely by a single individual

-    the greatest impact an effective leader has is in the choices they make in appointing and developing talented staff.  If they get this right, their own work becomes much less challenging.  Surely we shouldn't have to pay anyone more than ten times the salary of an entry-level teacher for what amounts to excellent recruitment and staff development, however vital these are?

-   great schools - or groups of schools/academies - usually have a number of exceptional individuals on the staff.  All should be rewarded well - balancing reward across the team

-    it doesn't fit well with the schools/academies sector to have certain individuals become celebrities.  It doesn't square well with the altruistic core of what we are all trying to achieve - namely to educate children and young people effectively

YET

-    you could argue that we have to pay whatever gets us the results - just take the pragmatic approach

-    some will say that we work in a market, even when it comes to public services - and that means paying the going rate for the talents we need

-    maybe we have to get away from a rather soft and fluffy view of the way the profession rewards its outstanding leaders.  Such a view did not lead to transformational outcomes in the past, so we need to try a different approach now.  If it doesn't work - let's try something else

-    outstanding hospitals have paid their CEOs mega salaries for years.  Patients benefit hugely from the better outcomes such hospitals deliver.  We need to catch up...

So, there we have it.

Confused?