There was a shift in school leadership conversation during the last decade. I missed it. This must have been one of my Rip Van Winkle events. After an apparent doze, I found conversations with school leaders loaded with references to “…having my back”. The phrase is used most often retroactively and unconditionally, though now and again it precedes the statement of a new idea, as in “I will … if you…”. I heard flat statements by Board members to each other, “We need to have our administrator’s backs”. And, flat statements by administrators, “They have my back” and “We have each other’s back”. “Having your back” became a something and I had missed its meaning.
Visions of fighter pilots came to mind. As planes go into action, a wingman defends the lead plane’s rear, the place the leader is not watching closely in the heat of action. Having someone’s back is to defend them from attack; it is to protect and safeguard. I was hearing that school leaders needed similar protection from attack.
My Van Winkle mind immediately wanted to know “why is this thus and what should I know about this thusness”, a great line from the movie Lincoln. Why is this thus?
In the 80s and 90s fellow school leaders did not speak of their “back” and the need for that kind of professional protection. Maybe we did not talk of it because of our naïveté of educational politics or there were underlying assumptions that leaders enjoyed covering protection, but I don’t remember it that way. My colleagues’ careers rode on the wings of their acts; some flew high and some went down in flames. Professionalism was collaborative and collegial and defended when in the right.
Public complaining is commonplace. In 1976 Albert Finch screamed “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more” in the movie Network and gave permission to the dissatisfied to scream and now stream their personal complaints on any and every issue. Protest, rightful or wrongful, gains attention and attention can cause response.
We should know that our society is more litigious today. 24-hour news shares anguished cries of foul against alleged wrong-doers and equal proclamations of disclaiming. Any and everything is a potential for “I will see you in court”. People lawyer up. Educators and schools have not been immune. Many suits are filed and even more appear to be threatened with the belief that the threat of going to court will make an undesired decision go away.
If not a lawsuit, demonstrations can work just as effectively for anyone disagreeing with a school decision. A group of citizens or parents or students, or all three together, with petitions and banners in hand can make scenes that cause a school leader to flinch. The flinch becomes more pronounced when television crews show up and cameras roll or reporters call at any time of the day. And, even more flinch worthy when the School Board is looking on.
School Boards flinch just like school administrators.
We should know that “having a person’s back” meant the person with a protected back literally had a “Kings X”, a truce, or “get out of jail free” card that would free them of personal ownership of the consequences of their decision in question. Absolution, kind of.
We should know that the idea of institutional protection brought on a circling of wagons, a fortifying of barriers between individuals and complaints. One can see the circle of wagons at a meeting in the way people arranged the table. It is apparent in body language and spoken words. Meetings presumed opposition not agreement or interest in middle grounds. In fact, “I’m mad as hell…” and circled wagons do not invite middle grounding.
School Boards do more than flinch at the threat of a meeting room full of irate parents, students, and news reporters demanding redress from a school decision. Instead of moving parties to conciliation, these circling wagons stiffens necks and positions. It makes the pre-disposition for “having backs” more resolute and “having backs” may make decisions less inclusive in the get-go. We should know that once circled, it is hard to uncircle the wagons.
What should I know about this thusness?
There is a large difference between protection and support. Consider protection as an immunity from accountability for the consequences of a decision. With immunity, no defense of a contested decision is necessary. The protector of the back insinuates that little in the controversial decision will change and no consequences for poor decisions will be enforced.
Consider support as not an immunity but as a pre-conditional understanding applied after the fact. Protection is warranted when protection is warranted. Support is warranted when support is warranted. And, no protection or support is warranted when no protection or support is warranted. This sounds easy and correct, but it falls apart if wagons are allowed to circle. The key is to circle the facts not the personnel.
Emerging late into the “got your back era”, I found the need to understand these caveats. Call them the conditions as in “I will have your back when…”. These are not my caveats, but caveats required for public service. Support is yours, when
- You are faithful to the trust that has been given to you as a school leader.
- You acted with integrity, honesty, and sincerity in making a “best high ground” decision.
- Your decisions are founded in the school mission and goals.
- You are child-centered and not self-centered.
- You are not afraid to make a necessary decision.
- You are as transparent as the conditions will allow you to be.
- You are humble when wrong; wrong is a problem that can be fixed if admitted, confronted, and addressed.
- You balance your wisdom and skills to make good decisions with your wisdom and skills to fix your poor decisions.
- You support others as you wish to be supported – the Golden Rule of Having Backs.
It is not a long list but it serves to place a leader and her superordinates in the proper relationship.
As caveats, they also play well in creating the proper relationship of the public with School Boards.
Thus, we know that we are not alone. What we do individually has consequences to others. We are not perfect and in our imperfections we need to be responsible, accountable, and proactive to be better. Someone is likely to yell “I’m angry as hell ..” at us sometime. A quick review that we have been faithful to our caveats sustains us and those who support us.
And, we also know that some days there are people who are just plain angry as hell and that is their problem.