Hiring for Trust: Using the TrustED® 360 as an HR and Succession Planning Tool

Abstract

Leadership hiring and succession planning are too important to be guided solely by generic profiles. This article explains how TrustED® 360 data can help boards and heads of school identify the leadership qualities currently missing on the team, refine interview and onboarding priorities, and hire leaders who strengthen the whole bridge of trusted school leadership. Updated research on structured selection, person-team fit, team composition, and multi-source feedback reinforces the same practical conclusion: wise hiring should be both mission-sensitive and evidence-informed.

---

Schools should not hire only for a role; they should hire for the health of the leadership bridge.

Hiring a school leader is one of the most consequential decisions a school makes. A strong hire can deepen trust, stabilize culture, strengthen mission alignment, and accelerate improvement. A poor hire can create confusion, weaken morale, increase turnover, and stall progress. Yet many schools begin leadership searches with generic language: experienced, relational, visionary, collaborative, organized, mission-fit, and student-centered. These qualities matter, but they may not answer the most important question: What kind of trusted leadership capacity does this school need next?

Covenant Ridge School* was entering a season of transition. The upper school principal had accepted a call elsewhere, the head of school was relatively new, the board was anxious to avoid disruption, and the faculty had grown weary of initiatives that seemed to begin with energy but fade without clear follow-through. On paper, the search committee knew what it wanted: a faithful Christian educator, an experienced administrator, a strong communicator, and someone who would be “a good fit.” But when the leadership team reviewed its TrustED® 360 profile, the conversation shifted. The team was strong in warmth, connection, and mission language, but the data revealed lower scores in clarity, routines, monitoring, and follow-through. The question changed from “Who do we like?” to “What must the next leader strengthen for the school to flourish?”

The TrustED® 360 can help answer that question. When a leadership team has an opening, assessing the team’s strengths and weaknesses can identify the attributes and competencies needed in the next leader. A low-scoring component may become a skill identifier for the next person added to the team.[1] This is a powerful HR insight. Schools should not hire only for a role; they should hire for the health of the leadership bridge.

At Covenant Ridge, that meant the search committee stopped treating “relational” as a stand-alone category. Everyone valued relationships. But the school did not merely need another warm personality. It needed a leader who could preserve relational trust while also building systems of clarity and order. The committee rewrote the position description to emphasize communication rhythms, instructional follow-through, data-informed decision-making, and visible leadership. They also added a case study exercise asking finalists to design a first-90-days plan to improve consistency across grade levels without damaging faculty morale.

Consider the difference. A school with strong relationships but weak systems may need a leader who brings clarity, communication, monitoring, and order. A school with strong mission language but inconsistent instructional practice may need a leader with deep knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. A school with strong operations but weak culture may need a leader known for relationships, visibility, and community building. Without data, a school may hire an impressive candidate who duplicates existing strengths while leaving critical gaps untouched.

Leadership research supports the importance of role clarity and strategic fit. Effective principals influence schools through multiple pathways, including instructional leadership, teacher development, organizational management, and school climate.[3] Hitt and Tucker’s synthesis similarly shows that key leadership practices span several domains.[5] Because leadership work is multidimensional, hiring should be multidimensional as well. A resume may show experience, but it may not reveal whether a candidate strengthens the particular components the existing team lacks.

The best hiring question is not simply, “Is this a strong candidate?” It is, “Does this candidate strengthen the part of the bridge currently under the greatest load?”

The broader HR research points in the same direction. Updated work in personnel selection has continued to affirm the value of structured interviews and carefully designed selection systems, while cautioning against overconfidence in any single predictor of future performance.[11]

Research on person-environment fit also suggests that fit is multidimensional: person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit can each relate to important outcomes such as satisfaction, commitment, performance, strain, and turnover.[12] In a school setting, this means the question is not whether a candidate is generally appealing. The deeper question is whether the candidate’s gifts, values, practices, and leadership behaviors align with the role's actual needs, the school's mission, and the existing leadership team.

Team research adds another important layer. A leadership team is not merely a collection of individually talented people. Team composition matters. Studies of deep-level team composition have examined how abilities, values, and personality patterns relate to team performance.[13] More recent research continues to explore the connection between team members' characteristics and team outcomes, reinforcing a practical point that school leaders already know from experience: the right mix of capacities matters. A school may not need five leaders who all lead in the same way. It may need complementary strengths that, together, make the whole team more trustworthy, more responsive, and more effective.

This is where the TrustED® 360 can serve as a bridge between leadership assessment and hiring practice. The assessment does not replace prayer, wisdom, discernment, or personal knowledge of candidates. It does, however, discipline the process. It gives the board or head of school a structured way to ask, "Where are we strong?" Where are we vulnerable? Which improvement priorities are already underway? What capacity will be required over the next three years? What leadership behaviors are most needed now?

At Covenant Ridge, those questions changed the interview process. Instead of asking only broad questions about leadership philosophy, the committee built questions around the school’s lowest-scoring trust components. Candidates were asked how they had brought clarity to ambiguous expectations, how they had communicated difficult changes, how they had monitored implementation without micromanaging, and how they had rebuilt trust after a prior decision had created confusion. References were asked targeted questions as well: Did this leader follow through? Did faculty know what was expected? Did communication improve? Were systems strengthened without making the school feel impersonal?

TrustED® 360 data can improve the entire hiring process. Before posting the position, the board or head of school can review the current leadership team profile. Which components are strong? Which are vulnerable? Which improvement priorities are already underway? What capacity will be required over the next three years? The answers can shape the position description, interview questions, reference checks, case studies, and onboarding plan.

For example, if the school needs a leader strong in the Girders component, interview questions should explore change leadership, contextual judgment, input, innovation, and situational awareness. Candidates might be asked to describe a time they challenged the status quo while preserving trust. If the school needs Deck strength, questions should focus on communication systems, monitoring, evaluation, and operational routines. If the school needs Superstructure strength, the process should examine culture building, relationships, outreach, and stakeholder advocacy.

Using TrustED® 360 Data to Shape the Search

If the team profile reveals...	The search should emphasize...	Evidence to seek during selection...
Low Girders: Adapt & Contextualize	Change leadership, contextual judgment, innovation, and wise implementation	Examples of adapting an initiative to local culture while preserving trust
Low Deck: Clarity & Order	Communication systems, monitoring routines, decision-making clarity, and follow-through	Case-study response, reference feedback on consistency, sample communication plan
Low Superstructure: Communication & Relationships	Visibility, stakeholder trust, parent partnership, culture-building, and advocacy	Evidence of listening practices, relationship repair, community engagement, and morale building
Low Substructure: Connection & Support	Coaching, encouragement, faculty care, and relational availability	Examples of supporting struggling teachers without lowering expectations
Low Foundation: Beliefs & Values	Mission clarity, biblical conviction, shared commitments, and moral courage	Alignment with the school’s beliefs, values, and philosophy of education
Low Bearings: Flexible & Involved	Responsiveness, collaboration, adaptive leadership, and presence in the work	Examples of being accessible, flexible, and actively engaged in problem-solving

The TrustED® 360 also has value for succession planning. Many schools respond to leadership transitions only when a vacancy occurs. By then, urgency may drive decisions. A healthier approach is to use leadership trust data to identify internal development needs before the transition. If an assistant principal may someday become head of school, what components must be developed now? If a department chair may become principal, what trusted leadership behaviors need coaching? If the current team is dependent on one leader’s strength, how can that strength be distributed before it becomes a succession vulnerability?

At Covenant Ridge, the process revealed that the school did not need succession planning only for the principal vacancy. It needed a leadership pipeline. A gifted department chair had strong instructional instincts but needed coaching in communication and conflict navigation. An assistant principal had excellent relational trust but had not yet developed consistent systems for accountability and follow-through. The TrustED® 360 helped the head of school see these not as personal deficiencies, but as development priorities. Succession planning became less about naming an heir apparent and more about strengthening the bridge before the next transition arrived.

This approach aligns with the distinction between leader development and leadership development. Leader development focuses on the individual; leadership development builds collective capacity and the relational systems through which leadership occurs. A school that uses TrustED® 360 data for succession planning is not merely preparing a person for a position. It is strengthening the leadership culture that future leaders will inherit.

Hiring for trust continues long after the contract is signed.

Boards can also benefit from this approach. Board members often evaluate senior leaders through limited windows: board meetings, reports, parent complaints, financial trends, and public presentations. These data points matter, but they are incomplete. TrustED® 360 data adds perspective from those who experience leadership daily. Used wisely, it can help boards support the head of school, identify professional development priorities, and clarify the leadership qualities needed in future hires.

There is also a caution. The TrustED® 360 should not be used as a simplistic gatekeeping device. Data must be interpreted carefully and ethically. The goal is not to label people permanently or reduce candidates to component scores. The goal is to improve discernment. Hiring still requires prayerful reflection, careful interviews, reference checks, mission alignment, and wisdom. The 360 adds another layer of evidence by clarifying what the organization truly needs.

This caution is especially important because “fit” can be misused. Research on organizational fit has warned that fit language can serve as a cover for subjective preferences or cultural sameness when it is not clearly defined and consistently assessed.[14] In Christian schools, this risk deserves careful attention. Mission fit is essential. Shared beliefs, values, and commitments matter deeply. But mission fit should not become a vague phrase that rewards familiarity, personality similarity, or comfort. A trustworthy process defines the leadership capacities needed, uses structured evidence, asks consistent questions, and remains alert to bias.

The solution is not to abandon fit; it is to define fit faithfully and assess it wisely. A school should ask whether a candidate fits the mission, the role, the team’s actual needs, and the leadership behaviors required for the next season. The TrustED® 360 helps prevent fit from becoming merely a feeling. It anchors the conversation in shared language, stakeholder experience, and the six components of trusted school leadership.

Hiring for trust means looking beyond charisma, credentials, and chemistry. It means asking whether the next leader will strengthen the bridge that carries the school’s mission. The TrustED® 360 helps schools hire with that bridge in mind.

The same data can shape onboarding. Once a candidate is hired, the school can use its leadership profile to design a first-year growth plan. If the new leader was hired to strengthen clarity and order, the onboarding plan should include expectations for communication systems, decision-making routines, and progress monitoring. If the new leader was hired to strengthen the culture, the plan should include milestones for stakeholder listening, visibility, and relationship-building. Hiring for trust continues long after the contract is signed.

Covenant Ridge eventually hired a candidate who was not the flashiest presenter in the pool, but whose references, case-study responses, and past performance consistently demonstrated the very capacities the school needed. In the first year, the new principal did not try to reinvent the school. She listened carefully, clarified expectations, simplified communication routines, and helped the faculty see how accountability could be an act of care rather than control. Trust did not deepen because the school found a perfect leader. Trust deepened because the school had named the load the bridge was carrying and then hired a leader prepared to help carry it.

This approach also respects candidates. A candidate who understands the school’s trust profile can discern whether the role is a genuine fit. Rather than selling the school as problem-free, leaders can describe the bridge honestly: here is where we are strong, here is where we need growth, and here is the kind of leadership we are praying and planning to add. Such transparency begins the employment relationship with trust rather than image management.

When schools hire this way, assessment is not an HR formality. It becomes an act of stewardship. The leadership bridge is too important to be maintained by instinct alone. The next hire should not merely fill an empty office. The next hire should strengthen the bridge.

End Notes

*Name changed to protect privacy and confidentiality.

[1] Toby A. Travis, TrustED: The Bridge to School Improvement (2021), Chapter 9, especially 'The Value of a School Leader 360 Assessment' and 'Putting Data to Work.'

[2] Kenneth Leithwood, Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson, and Kyla Wahlstrom, How Leadership Influences Student Learning (The Wallace Foundation, 2004), https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/pages/how-leadership-influences-student-learning.aspx; Karen Seashore Louis et al., Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning (The Wallace Foundation, 2010), https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/pages/investigating-the-links-to-improved-student-learning.aspx.

[3] Jason A. Grissom, Anna J. Egalite, and Constance A. Lindsay, How Principals Affect Students and Schools: A Systematic Synthesis of Two Decades of Research (The Wallace Foundation, 2021), https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/pages/how-principals-affect-students-and-schools-a-systematic-synthesis-of-two-decades-of-research.aspx.

[4] Robert J. Marzano, Timothy Waters, and Brian A. McNulty, School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results (ASCD, 2005).

[5] Michael T. Hitt and Pamela D. Tucker, 'Systematic Review of Key Leader Practices Found to Influence Student Achievement,' Review of Educational Research 86, no. 2 (2016): 531-569, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315614911.

[6] Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas W. Many, and Mike Mattos, Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work, 3rd ed. (Solution Tree, 2016/2018 editions).

[7] Learning Forward, Standards for Professional Learning (2022), https://standards.learningforward.org/.

[8] Anthony S. Bryk and Barbara Schneider, Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement (Russell Sage Foundation, 2002); Megan Tschannen-Moran, Trust Matters: Leadership for Successful Schools, 2nd ed. (Jossey-Bass, 2014).

[9] James W. Smither, Manuel London, and Richard R. Reilly, 'Does Performance Improve Following Multisource Feedback? A Theoretical Model, Meta-Analysis, and Review of Empirical Findings,' Personnel Psychology 58, no. 1 (2005): 33-66, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.514_1.x.

[10] John Hattie and Helen Timperley, 'The Power of Feedback,' Review of Educational Research 77, no. 1 (2007): 81-112, https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.

[11] Paul R. Sackett, Charlene Zhang, Christopher M. Berry, and Filip Lievens, 'Revisiting Meta-Analytic Estimates of Validity in Personnel Selection: Addressing Systematic Overcorrection for Restriction of Range,' Journal of Applied Psychology 107, no. 11 (2022): 2040-2068, https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994; Paul R. Sackett et al., 'Revisiting the Design of Selection Systems in Light of New Findings Regarding the Validity of Widely Used Predictors,' Industrial and Organizational Psychology 16, no. 3 (2023): 283-300, https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.24.

[12] Amy L. Kristof-Brown, Ryan D. Zimmerman, and Erin C. Johnson, 'Consequences of Individuals’ Fit at Work: A Meta-Analysis of Person–Job, Person–Organization, Person–Group, and Person–Supervisor Fit,' Personnel Psychology 58, no. 2 (2005): 281-342, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x.

[13] Suzanne T. Bell, 'Deep-Level Composition Variables as Predictors of Team Performance: A Meta-Analysis,' Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 3 (2007): 595-615, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595; Theresa J. B. Kooij et al., 'Revisiting the Relationship Between Team Members’ Personality and Their Team Performance,' Journal of Research in Personality 109 (2024): 104457, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104457.

[14] Louise Ashley and Jo Duberley, 'Matching Candidates to Culture: How Assessments of Organisational Fit Can Promote Inequality,' Work, Employment and Society 37, no. 6 (2023): 1487-1504, https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170231155294.

[15] U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 'Job-Fit Measures,' Assessment and Selection, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/assessment-and-selection/other-assessment-methods/job-fit-measures/.

[16] Harvard Kennedy School People Lab, Evidence-Based Strategies for Hiring a Strong and Diverse Workforce (2022), https://peoplelab.hks.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/evidence-based-strategies-for-hiring-a-strong-and-diverse-workforce.pdf.

© 2026 Toby A. Travis. All rights reserved.