By definition, jealousy represents a variety of meanings. Some of them are provided in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and they include “fearful or wary of being supplanted; apprehensive of loss of position or affection; resentful or bitter in rivalry; envious; possessively watchful; concerning or arising from feelings of envy, apprehension, or bitterness; intolerant of disloyalty or infidelity; autocratic.”
Dictionary definitions, of course, are isolated and can reflect meaning only when applied to a context. In the school environment, professional jealousy is difficult to observe and almost impossible to substantiate because its motives, causes, and effects are revealed in subtle ways. Common sense, however, indicates that such behavior is destructive to the human condition and to the school setting because it hurts individuals and lessens their productivity. These negative outcomes should encourage researchers to probe all aspects of professional jealousy so that individuals who possess much of this undesirable trait are identified and prevented from being placed in leadership positions that affect the total school system.
Allow me to show a few examples of how district-office administrators practice professional jealousy:
- In one district, a department supervisor was an avid reader of professional literature and also wrote many articles for educational journals. Upon publication, he would often duplicate his articles and distribute them to teachers, administrators, and board of education members. He also attached to these articles a cover letter highlighting their main points and suggesting ways to implement them. One day, his superintendent suddenly sent a written directive to him indicating that he must not distribute such materials without prior approval. The directive further indicated that the superintendent was in the best position to determine if the articles should be released, condensed, or withheld. At a subsequent meeting, the superintendent told the supervisor that he was too intellectual for a practitioner’s role and that he probably should pursue a university position. Teachers and principals who worked directly with the supervisor, however, expressed a different point of view. They agreed emphatically that he was a “solid” practitioner who was caring, up to date, and highly competent.
These and other examples are difficult to verify, but one can make appropriate inferences about them by cross-referencing reliable sources and by having pertinent discussions with these sources. Not surprisingly, I have discovered in my work that many of the individuals who were victims of professional jealousy found themselves reacting adversely to the pressure; for example, they began to CYT (cover your tail) by documenting in writing almost everything they did. Unnecessary energy was therefore directed toward defensive efforts, rather than toward productive outcomes.
At times, I am disappointed and embarrassed at being part of a profession that allows such behavior to prevail. Knowing that jealousy exists in all types and levels of employment and realizing that it is ingrained in the human condition do not lessen my abhorrence of its use in hurting people. Certainly, self-control is part of one’s unwritten job description and personality development. Yet, regrettably, I am aware of so much jealousy in the higher levels of the educational bureaucracy that I have become convinced that those who enjoy being clever in a political sense usually are lacking in substance. Put another way, people who use excessive time and energy being shrewd and devious seem to be unable (or unwilling) to critically analyze and competently implement important ideas.
This separation of politics and substance suggests a potentially dangerous overgeneralization, but I sense it comes close to identifying those characteristics that distinguish the clever, insecure manipulator from the profound, thinking leader.
Knowing these characteristics, in turn, gives us a means of doing something about the problem. Although we never will eliminate professional jealousy entirely in the educational bureaucracy, we can lessen its impact on the school setting. From experience, I have found that people who demonstrate real knowledge of their fields and who enjoy growing professionally with their colleagues are less likely to waste time in jealousy-inspired plotting. Hiring such knowledgeable leaders who will focus their energy on improving instructional programs is the key, then, to combatting professional jealousy. Here are suggestions for doing that at the district-office level:
- Form a planning team consisting of a content-area supervisor, a building principal,a central-office administrator, a school board member, teachers, and parents. By including a variety of perspectives, you can lessen the incidence of nepotism while increasing the potential for substance.
Unfortunately, even people of substance can sometimes demonstrate jealousy. A candidate might emphasize his or her role in implementing innovations, for example, while never mentioning the support of others. This narrow perspective could not only imply insecurity--one aspect of jealousy--but also suggest inadequate approaches to sustaining innovations. New ideas have a better chance of lasting when a number of colleagues and community members work cooperatively to implement them. This cooperative approach supports the link between ownership and sustenance of innovations, and is a factor that should be sought during the interview process.
each other’s perceptions of the candidates. Since professional jealousy is difficult to confirm, team members should compare their observations and notes. For example, during the school visits, did they hear consistently negative comments (revealing aspects of professional jealousy) directed toward any of the candidates? Did these same individuals also demonstrate few cooperative accomplishments? If so, the planning team would be wise to give these candidates a low rating.
