We’ve been interviewing for a head of department recently, a situation not uncommon at this time of year. We shortlisted Joanna, Alan, Petra and Mary, invited them for interviews and gave them an itinerary for the day.

This included a half-hour lesson, a tour of the school, meetings with the department, and panel interviewers. It gave us an idea of their strengths, and gave all involved the chance to have their say. This led us to the final interview. We’d asked the candidates to prepare a five-minute presentation, which was followed by questions from the panel. Predictable stuff.

The job of a head of subject or year, or any of the so-called middle management jobs, can be difficult. Being in the middle, as the description suggests, can cause some people difficulty. Are they with the staff or with senior management? Rarely do schools admit that relationships divide this neatly, but when interviewing we want to know where people see themselves. My take on this question is to outline the type of relationship that I offer to curriculum leaders: I meet regularly with these key people, the agenda for this meeting having been determined at the previous meeting.

Joanna said: “I am the defender of the subject team and my job is to protect staff from the ravages of the senior team, to make sure that I get the best deal for my people.” That’s fine, but this does rather assume that everything the senior team proposes is contrary to the departmental staff’s interest.

Alan said: “I am on the side of senior management.” School policy was safe in his hands. Whatever the senior team asked would be done; powerfully and decisively implemented at the classroom level. Again, how nice. But the head of this department is a major curriculum leader at our school and we want someone who is willing to speak up for themselves.

Petra replied: “I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.” She hadn’t considered the relationship at all. She came from a school where there was little contact beyond the annual timetable meeting. She couldn’t imagine what such a meeting would entail or accomplish. We are, to some extent, the product of the schools we have worked at, and for some the idea of an ongoing dialogue with another person, outside the subject specialism, is unheard of.

Last, I asked Mary. She had given the matter a lot of thought and understood what the job was about. She said the relationship with the line manager was a constructive and working one. She said that while she was responsible for line managing others she, too, was line managed. She saw a meeting as one where we would discuss ideas. We would talk about staff development, role-play difficult meetings, talk about objectives for the team, work on making sense of vague assessment objectives set out in the national curriculum.

This was wonderful. I was listening to someone who understood that management wasn’t them and us. That by sharing an agenda the work was strengthened, and that we all benefit from open dialogue. She understood that a critical feature of the best schools is the commonality of purpose and the clarity of the underpinning vision.

Mary was offered the job. I gave feedback to the others, telling them they needed to think about their idea of what it is to manage and to be managed. Those who will succeed appreciate that the senior manager has a role to play in the realisation of the department’s success - in some cases this is as a critical friend, in others it can be more interventionist - but for many it lies between the two. The best bring this appreciation to the role but also see themselves as part of a team of middle managers. They think, “We are the curriculum leaders in the school. We can work together to bring about a greater understanding of learning styles, can put a sharp focus on teaching performance.”

To those embarking this year on the search for the right curriculum leadership post, I say: think about what you are going to be.

Susan Tranter is deputy head of Matthew Arnold school in Oxford