The Big Question: What could we achieve if we let go of ego?

The Big Question Series

This series of posts is a result of a unique event where Edurio hosted 32 trust leaders for a residential to discuss the biggest questions across the sector in a candid and deep discussion.

The questions were pre-submitted by the participating trust leaders, and the most popular topics were then discussed in groups of 10-15 leaders.

Chatham House rules were observed in the sessions. These blog posts summarise the main insights to elevate the discussion across the sector.

In this discussion, trust leaders explored the deliberately uncomfortable question: “What could the trust sector achieve for children if we stopped worrying about our individual trusts and let go of ego?”

The conversation was a shared reflection on identity, power and responsibility in a system that is still evolving.

Balancing trust identity with regional collaboration

Early in the discussion, leaders reflected on how quickly identity can narrow perspective.

Trusts often describe themselves by the communities they serve, whether they be high-achieving and affluent or deprived and disadvantaged. Over time, those descriptors can harden into badges.

As one CEO put it, we can begin to think in terms of “my trust” and “your trust”, rather than asking what children across an area actually need.

That badge can create pride and a sense of ego.

The challenge is not that leaders care deeply about their organisations, but when the organisation’s identity limits collaboration and overtakes improving outcomes.

One leader framed it starkly: “How can we get ourselves into a world where we care more about what the national outcomes are than where we are relative to the national outcome?”

That shift, from relative performance to shared progress, would fundamentally change how trusts work together.

Competition, collaboration and civic duty

Competition between trusts was another point of the discussion.

Several leaders described the subtle instinct to protect “their patch” and community. One CEO shared a moment of self-awareness when a high-performing trust considered expanding into their region. Their initial reaction had been defensive – “What would this mean for our growth?”

But thoughtful reflection changed the conclusion. If another trust could serve children better, the right response was to open doors, not close them.

This example captures the tension at the heart of the system. Growth can be about sustainability and capacity, but it can also drift into growth for growth’s sake. It is important for the sector to pause and ask why growth is the goal.

Underneath this sits a wider civic question. Trust leaders are not only responsible for their own organisations. Rather, they are shaping what the wider education system becomes.

As one participant put it, there is a duty to ensure that in ten years’ time we cannot look back and feel shame that we improved our own schools but failed to improve the system.

Letting go of ego, in this context, means widening the lens. Moving from organisational stewardship to civic leadership.

Risk, responsibility and the weight of leadership

The conversation also acknowledged the structural realities that trust leaders operate within.

Government policy has devolved significant risk to trusts. Complex challenges around attendance, SEND, parental engagement and funding pressures land squarely on leaders’ desks. Therefore, decisions about growth, mergers or restructuring are often about sustainability and survival.

In that context, it is easy for decisions to feel personal. “This is your trust. Your choice. Your failure or success.”

Several CEOs pushed back gently on being overly self-critical. The system creates the incentives it then judges.

Letting go of ego does not mean ignoring context. It does mean recognising where trust leaders have influence – real power to bring change. It also means recognising when this is not the case, and being honest about both.

Confidence, courage and arrogance

Not all ego is destructive.

One strand of the discussion focused on the difference between ego and conviction. Staff want leaders with courage and clarity of values. They want someone prepared to say, “This is what we stand for.” That is not a destructive ego; it’s leadership.

The line is crossed when confidence becomes arrogance and capability is assumed rather than earned.

One leader described the essential mix for balance as humility and will. The ability to hold strong convictions while remaining open to challenge.

In practice, that might mean creating spaces where disagreement is welcomed, where leaders actively test their own assumptions, and where curiosity is valued more than certainty.

Defining success beyond organisational growth

Perhaps the most powerful moment in the session came with a different question.

In service of the real goal, what would you be willing to sacrifice? If the collective goal is the best possible education for every child, what might you need to give up?

For some, it was a territorial instinct; for others, attachment to growth; and for a few, the comfort of focusing solely on their own organisation.

Acknowledging that personal success is intertwined with structural change is uncomfortable, however, necessary. Sacrifice might not mean stepping aside. It might mean sharing data transparently, opening up practice, advocating for another trust where they are better placed to serve or questioning whether centralisation risks reducing creativity in future leaders.

These are not small shifts. They require flexibility and the willingness to rethink what has defined success before.

On whose behalf?

As the session closed, one final question lingered.

On whose behalf do we lead?

Who owns our schools? Who decides what they are for? Who benefits from the system as it stands?

If trust leaders truly are system leaders, then the question is unavoidable. Are we content with the system we are shaping?

This is not about blame, but about agency.

Trust leaders are powerful. Often more so than they allow themselves to believe. Letting go of ego is not about diminishing that power, but about directing it outward, towards shared outcomes instead of organisational comparison.

A beacon flag moment

The facilitator of the session offered the idea of a “beacon flag”. A visible signal that from this moment on, something will be different.

For trust leaders, that might mean catching the instinct to defend territory and choosing collaboration instead. For example, prioritising area-wide attendance over trust-level rankings or challenging governance conversations that focus on status rather than service.

Small shifts compound, especially when enacted by those with influence.

The Big Question remains deliberately unresolved. There is no single operating model that eliminates ego. Nor should there be.

But if even more trust leaders asked themselves, “What am I protecting here? And is it in service of children?”, the system would tilt.

The conversation showed that many are already doing exactly that.

If you are grappling with similar tensions in your trust, you are not alone. The sector moves forward when leaders surface these questions openly, not when they pretend they do not exist.

Perhaps letting go of ego does not mean losing ambition. Perhaps it means expanding it.