Tag Archives: high ground

Two Rules: Administer the Policy and Do What Is Right for Children

Posted on by
Reply

“Rocks in the pocket” eventually cause most school administrators to leave their current position, wrote Jerry Patterson in The Anguish of Leadership (2000). Rocks are negative baggage. They are the unfavorable stories attached to a person’s reputation by those who are dissatisfied with the direction of leadership or did not get their way on an issue. They are the residue of scorn accrued by leaders who make leadership decisions that cause some to smile and others to frown. The weight of rocks, like the chains forged in life by Marley in Dickens’ Christmas Carol, eventually cause career mortality, because their accumulated weight drowns their owner in the political waters of public education.

It is impossible to be an active school leader and not pick up some rocks along the way. The simplest of decisions, such as keeping children indoors for recess on a rainy day, will cause someone to say “it was not raining that hard, “they could have gone outside” and that someone deposits a pebble in the principal’s pocket. On the other hand, sending all children out in a rainstorm would cause many people to drop a lot of pebbles in the principal’s pocket with the aggregated weight of a hefty rock.

Some pebbles and rocks are avoidable and may even be returned to sender if a principal follows two rules of the leadership road: execute the policy and do what is right for children.

“Here, fill this pocket with rocks,” is what a principal says when he tries to make children or parents or community members happy by “customizing” school rules or school board policy. Softening the consequences prescribed by policy may be a principal’s initial thought when looking into the sad face of a child alleged with a school rule infraction. “Do something to appease this sad child,” a principal’s inner voice says. Bending the rule “just a bit” may seem okay when confronted with a very supportive parent who understands the rules, but ekes out an “is that really necessary in this case.” “Just a bit” is the length or rope that that winds up being a noose. Letting something slide is the same as standing watch on quick sand; there are no secrets in schools and very quickly others expect the “bent rule” or the “let it go this time” to be the new status quo on school policies and rules. Within a few years, a principal’s pockets are so heavy with rocks that this principal begins to avoid making decisions, especially critical decisions. “How can I be blamed, if I don’t make the decision?” Decision avoidance doesn’t bring rocks; it brings boulders.

The easiest way to remain a “pebbles only” school leader is to be clear about your duty. You are hired to maintain an orderly and positive learning and teaching environment by doing the work assigned by your employer, the School Board. Number one on the job description for most principals is “administer Board policies and school rules” or a variation of that mandate.

Executing policy is not an act of compliance that is blind to the moment or the people involved. Being an educator first, a principal has perfect teachable moments to explain the rationale for a rule or the background to a policy. When a school board reviews and revises policy frequently in order to craft appropriate organizational and behavioral guidelines, policies have a context that should be explained and can be taught. As an enforcer of policy, a principal by design is a player in the writing of policy as well as a reviewer and reviser of policy. There should be very few school policies of which a principal can say “I was unaware of…” or “… am unfamiliar with this rule.” An active principal reads and studies and understands school policies and rules and purposefully talks with district leadership and the school board when policies and rules seem out of date or ineffective in guiding student, parent and community decisions. Policies and rules are living statements in a school and a principal is responsible for the quality of their life.

To enforce a rule is to provide clarity between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. It is personally impersonal work. The resulting clarity of what the school expects and accepts can create a very positive and productive margin within which children and adults can use policy and rules for their individual and group success. At the same time, the margin allows these same school people to be creative in “pushing the envelope” of policies or rules to open new possibilities and opportunities. Principals who understand policies and rules and can help students and adults to explore new areas of behavior and school culture without falling into conflict with the school’s need for orderliness. Enforcing rules can be very liberating when a leader understands their intentions and goals. A leader who does this begins to unload rocks from his pockets, because he engenders respect as a leader rather than a “by the rules man.” School principalship, however, begins and ends with administering policy with integrity.

The second rule of the road is to always find the high ground of “doing what is right” for children. Sounds easy and sounds right, eh! But, what do you do when “what is right” for children is not shared by teachers and staff, or community adults, or parents? Seems odd that this contradiction might exist, but it rises all the time. The special interests of specific groups of people often are in conflict and the core of each conflict is control. Whose opinion will control the behavior of others? What students wear, how they behave in school, what they can say and do, how they use their time, what they eat and where they eat it, when they go to the bathroom – the list is endless – all are control issues. Some may say that decisions on these issues have safety and organizational implications or are based on “common sense.” Whose common sense will control the issue?

In almost all of these issues, the principal must be the spokesperson for children. Because children are not formally at the table for a discussion and decision of the issues that involve them, their opinions are given short shrift. Enter the principal! The principal’s high ground position must be “I will speak for what is right for the children in my school.” This white knight role does not mean the principal should uphold nonsensical child-based positions. Some things children want to wear, do, say and have in their school will go beyond every adult’s common sense. Nonsensical as they often be, children still need to be represented at the adult’s table and that representative person must be the principal. There is a sincere sense of pride and purpose when a principal self-acknowledges that “this decision is right for children” and that is what really matters.

A principal who conscientiously administers Board policies and school rules and takes the high ground of doing what is right for children is a school leader who will not be drowned by the weight of rocks in the pockets.

Be Truman-like When Engaging Criticism

Posted on by
Reply

We are admonished by President Truman, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

Heat in this context is the hot breath of criticism and the red-faced anger of disagreement inflicted upon those whose decisions are vulnerable to public scrutiny. Harry Truman would tell us that if taking heat bothers you, don’t put yourself in positions where you can expect criticism. From a man known for plain speaking, this is good advice.

Extended applications of this Trumanism tell us that some heat will burn you, and some heat will strengthen you.  Or, there is bad heat and there is good heat. And, heat is what you make of it.

The “Oh, now you tell me!” of this are these recipes for living and working in a hot kitchen.

• When you make “high ground” decisions, heat will clarify your rationale and clarify your purpose. When you make “low ground” decisions, heat will consume you in defending the indefensible.

The “high ground” is philosophical and ethical and closely tied to organizational mission. If your considered decision cites educational theory and research, if it is aspirational in leading those impacted by its effects to do better than they otherwise would do, or if it is aligned with the stated and accepted objectives of the organization, you can assume a more calm and explanatory role. It is a teachable moment. Listen to the criticism and then ask, “Have you considered this?” Any indication that your critic(s) has not considered your high ground points opens the door for you to add illumination.

On the other hand, if your decision is “low ground” and more transactional than founded, you will slowly roast while making a defense of a situation that could have spawned a variety of lowly-grounded decisions. When there is high ground, take it. Let your critics attempt to assail your decision from the low ground but be silent when they then are swamped in making an indefensible argument.

If your decision is “low ground”, be the first to say “I am reconsidering this matter. Expect to hear from me in two days.”

• When you invite critics into your kitchen to understand their complaints, the kitchen is your friend. Use the kitchen to cook your work, don’t let your work get charred, overcooked or incinerated in your kitchen. When you close the kitchen to your critics, the mystique of what you do in the kitchen becomes a third entity in the scenario and that entity is not your friend.

The kitchen of decision-making is a unique environment. If it is your office or conference room and is adorned with images of your organization, then it is your home field and not a place that is overly familiar to your critics. You occupy the kitchen; it is your home turf so play the home field game. Keep the door to your kitchen open to anyone who wants to enter. Greet them as if they are entering your home, they are. Take the center stage chair in the room, it is your chair. Take care of the small talk, then get to business. It is your home field, set the agenda, set the goal, and set the time. Keep the kitchen open for business and keep it clear that you are the head cook in your kitchen.

Additionally, because this is your kitchen, you can authorize those who get to participate in your cooking session. Often, critics are accompanied by “others”. It is important to identify the critic and the supporters, because it is the critic’s criticism that is the meat of the conversation. Recognize the supporters but do not specifically engage with them. Let them add “support” but ignore the “extraneous”. Visual nodding at them is an appropriate recognition of their talk; verbal replies most often are not necessary for supporters.

When you close the kitchen to critics, the “closed” sign becomes just another negative issue. It adds to the list of things that someone holds against you. Don’t add to the list. Interestingly, inviting a critic into your kitchen often abates their ire and they decline the offer.

• When you can point at “policy and practice” as the basis for your decision, you can move the heat towards a discussion of the organization and its policies and practices and not a person – you. This is not a distractor; it is a focuser. When you can’t attach your decision to policy and practice, you stand naked and will be burned.

Every organization has its policy book or set of operating procedures. These are the adopted understandings that give direction and scope to organizational decisions. Most decisions that a seasoned organizational leader makes can be tied to policy and procedure, even if the leader did not make that connection at the time the decision was rendered. When the thermostat of criticism rises, pull out the policy and procedures book to make the proper connection, even if it is after the fact. Cite chapter and verse. When you can connect your decision and its backstory to adopted organizational policy, the decision is not your decision – you are the enactor of policy.

At the same time, do not hide behind the policy book. Your decision must be explained in everyday human language that recognizes the complaint, places it into an organizational context, and explains the application of policy as logical and appropriate. Policy can be perceived as “cold and impersonal.” Your challenge is to make the policy and its applications real and contemporary to topic of the criticism.

The same argument can be made for past practice, as long as there is clear similarity between the criticism and the massed practices. Give clear and concise examples of how the policy has been enacted in the past. These are real stories with real people. If there is no similarity, don’t invoke past practice. These would be a distracting and viewed as obstructive.

The importance of referring the conversation to policy is that it opens a door for discussion of policy and not people. The disagreement can be with the policy and not with the enactor and that disagreement can then be channeled into an invitation for further conversations about modifying policy. When a criticism can be turned into a mutual engagement in pro-activity, it is a win-win event.

• Finally, experience and insight inform our decisions and help us to live in the kitchen. Kitchen flare-ups for rooky leaders can be frightening. Consider your kitchen a tanning booth for professional skills and emotions. Each time the heat rises, you have the opportunity to refine your skills and enhance your professional image.

And, each time the kitchen gets hot, your emotions are exposed to potentially damaging vibes. So, use your sun screen. Your UPF increases when you find and stay on the high ground, when you maintain an open door to YOUR KITCHEN, and when your decisions are connected to organizational policies and procedures.