Not all Heroes Seek to Wear a Cape: Why the Chair and Principal Partnership Can Be the Unsung Hero in FE.

Governance in Further Education and Skills

When the outgoing FE Commissioner Shelagh Legrave warned boards to “beware of hero principals and dominant chairs”, her words carried the weight of experience. The language is stark, but the risks are real: weak oversight, opaque decision-making, and the erosion of trust.

Yet caution must come with nuance. Poorly governed leadership is dangerous, but effective leadership is essential. Principals who strive for impact are not inherently risky; the true danger lies in systems that force them into isolation, rather than relationships that hold them accountable.

When I read Shane Chowen’s FE Week article “FE Commissioner: Beware of ‘hero’ principals” (June 2025), over the summer recess, I also announced that I was honoured with a British Empire Medal (BEM) for services to education; its realism struck me. When asked during interviews about my BEM, and what had made the Lighthouse Learning Trust a success, I found myself reflecting on that same theme and on Legrave’s timely warning.

Governance as Partnership, Not Control: In a robust governance arrangement, the chair and principal are not adversaries; they are partners. Each brings a distinct role and perspective, but the same mission: advancing the institution’s purpose, sustaining public trust, and safeguarding students’ interests.

Boards function best when they combine strong scrutiny with relational trust. A chair’s role is not passive oversight, nor is it confrontation. An ordered and courageous chair works with the principal, challenging, supporting, and ensuring alignment.

Embedding Transparency through Relationship: At the core of relational governance is transparency, not as a tick-box exercise, but as an ongoing conversation. We proactively engage in open dialogue about both performance and well-being, not reactively when problems emerge. I accept this is difficult, as in the main, chairs are volunteers, and we continue to struggle to recruit and fill vacant Governor roles.

This approach allows governors to understand not just what decisions are being made, but why. It builds a governance culture that sees challenge as constructive and collective, rather than adversarial.

Leadership Wellbeing as Governance: We often underestimate how much leader wellbeing is a governance issue. A principal under stress, isolated in decision-making, or without confidants is less effective and more vulnerable to error.

Organisational well-being is rooted in structural and relational support, not just individual resilience. A governance system that neglects the human dimension undermines its own purpose.

From “Hero” to Steward: The FE Weekly article rightly highlights governance failures where leaders operated unchecked, or where those who hide under the ‘hero cape’ define their egos by it. The future of FE governance must shift from binary labels of “hero” and “villain” to a model of relational stewardship. Chairs and Principals, walking side by side, not standing in opposition.

The Hidden Cost of Mistrust: However, if we become overly wary of “heroes that wear capes,” we risk suppressing the very energy we want to see. Leaders may shy away from bold decisions or from speaking truth to power. They might retreat, compartmentalise, or withhold initiative.

Boards must remain vigilant, but vigilance should not become suspicion; it should support Principals who feel trusted to innovate and Chairs who feel confident to challenge.

What the Lighthouse Learning Trust Has Taught Me: Our successes have never come from one “hero.” They come from alignment: between vision and values, between governance and leadership, and between ambition and empathy.

By investing in relational governance, we strengthen transparency, reduce the risk of burnout, and reinforce that it is people, not processes, who sustain trust and innovate.

We have found that when the Chair and Principal set time aside for reflection, not just strategy, we avoid many problems before they escalate. We recognise that scrutiny without human regard breeds defensiveness: empathy without challenge breeds complacency.

Our governance culture allows leaders to speak about pressure or misstep without fear, trusting that challenge is rooted in purpose, not rivalry.

To conclude, FE is navigating disruption, funding uncertainty, accountability expectations, and shifting learner needs. In this context, we don’t need fewer leaders; we need better supported and aligned ones.

Board members must be courageous, curious, and compassionate. Principals must be bold, humble, and open. The sector must evolve from suspicious oversight to supportive challenge.

So, if you ask me, heroes are not those who stand above, and dominance is not about being above. They are those who stand beside others. Those who carry vision without ego, who ask questions without blame, and who build institutions that outlast any one person.

Leadership in FE is not about heroes or dominance. It is about stewardship, relationships, and shared purpose. If the FE sector is to thrive, let us shift the narrative. Let us stop fearing heroes and start investing in systems and cultures where every leader is both accountable and supported, governance becomes a source of stability, not tension. That is the leadership our colleges deserve and the unsung heroism that will carry our colleges forward and serve our students better.

Zoe Huggins B.E.M, December 2025

Related article

Chowen, S. (2025). FE Commissioner: Beware of “hero” principals. FE Week