Mission Creep Happens

One day you take a pause, look around, and wonder, “How did we get here?  Is this where we are supposed to be?”.  You find yourself in a place and circumstance you had not anticipated.  A school is not immune from this wonderment.

Organizational creep is a phenomenon not a person though there may be similarities between the two.  The verb to creep is to move slowly and carefully and to creep has many applications in our language.  The botanical verb to creep is to grow by the extension of roots and branches.  Creeping is natural in nature.  In human endeavors, children creep to become taller and more adult-like over time.  Habits creep up on us, especially the late-night snack’s effect when we step on a bathroom scale in the morning.  Groups and organizations also creep, especially in their mission, purpose, and goals.  Mission creep occurs when an organization’s actions stray beyond the stated mission of the organization.  The outcome of creeping means the organization may no longer be faithful to its initial and stated mission, but become bit off-centered in trying to be something it isn’t intended to be.

Life gives us many examples of organizational creep.  As a micro example, an idea for a new project is presented to a group of decision makers.  In the initial explanation, the idea is straightforward.  The focus of the new idea is to create new eco-friendly space that people in the organization can enjoy in a relaxing moment – a break area.  Every person enjoys breaks, lunch, before and after work moments and this place will be enhance their relaxation and be eco-friendly to boot.  Keep it simple.  A budget of $1,000 is approved and the idea is launched.

Ah, but after a few months the tables and chairs no longer fit the concept and benches and tall boys are wanted.  An eco space calls for greenery and plantings are ordered and installed.  The new space is appealing and more folks use it.  At the close of year one, expenses total $5,000, well over the approved budget, but because the space is popular and used no one points to the budget over run.  During year two, users ask if they can bring some of their work to the eco area and work there.  Just a few users initially are interested, but the space will need new infrastructure.  WIFI and electrical outlets are installed.  Now more users are interested and management of the eco space is required to efficiently schedule its use.  And, to do increased maintenance.  And, to be present to support users who have work-related needs.  At the start of year three, decision makers are asked to approve hiring an eco space facilitator at $15.00 an hour.  That wage is $31,200 a year.  Mission creep achieved.  Break room becomes new work environment and $1,000 per year becomes $30,000-plus.  Simple is as simple does; it creeps toward complexity.

Or, is this example an example of a good idea becoming a better idea?  Retrace back to the initial purpose: an enhanced space for moments of relaxation in a workday.  Retrace back to the initial cost/effect: $1,000 for a small concept.  Retrace the decision making: instead of the mission driving decisions the space drove the decisions.  Creep.

Schools see unintentional organizational creep all the time.  Most creeping is additive and addictive.  A classroom wants new shelving for more reading materials for children to read while in the classroom.  Done.  Materials go digital and the classroom wants several computer carousels.  Done.  Tech goes personal.  The classroom wants an IPad for each child.  Done.  The new tech needs more WIFI and electrical outlets.  Done.  A behavioral study indicates that in class reading time increased with the addition of more reading material and remained at that level with the addition of computer carousels and IPads and WIFI and electricals.  The mission of reading improvement was overcome by the mission to change with the times. 

We also observe mission creep by inadvertently altering time for instruction.  An elementary school has a balanced approach to academics, arts, PE, and foreign language instruction.  The balance is that children receive instruction in all these subjects each day of the school week.  When annual assessments indicate that many K-5 children are not making expected progress in numeracy and mathematical problem solving, a school conducts a study looking for improved curriculum.  The new adoption requires more minutes each day for math instruction.  Done.  On another front, children whose reading achievement is below expectation are assigned to work with a reading interventionist.  The time for this additional work is carved out of the full instructional day and children who do not need intervention are provided time for personalized reading.  The upshot to these changes is that instructional time for art, music, PE, and foreign language are reduced.  At first the reduction was in minutes per day for these “specials” and later a shift to alternating day instruction in specials and then to once-a-week instruction.  Achievement assessments indicate that performance in math and reading improved with additional time.  Learning and individual growth in art, music, PE, and foreign language diminished with the loss of time.  And, interest in art, music, and foreign language decreased.  At no point did the school evaluate its mission for K-5 education or proclaim a change from a balanced time approach to an increased focus on academics approach.  The school crept from balance to imbalance.  After the fact, we find our creeping has inadvertent outcomes.

How to prevent creep?  Regularly check yourself in the organizational mirror.  In the left hand, hold up your adopted mission statement.  In the right hand, hold up a snapshot of your organizational structure including where you spend time, money, and resources.  Does your right hand reflect the priorities and commitments of your left hand?  If these align, your organization still has fidelity with its stated mission.  If not, your organization is experiencing creep.  It is time to reconsider your mission or to rescale your organizational behaviors.  Either reconsideration or rescaling may be appropriate as doing something is required to re-achieve organizational fidelity to mission and purpose.  Sometimes we outgrow our mission and the mission must change.  Sometimes we creep beyond our mission and we must realign our work to the continuing mission.

When Not If I Have Your Back

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.