As school is almost out around the country, I think a great deal about transition and change opportunities, knowing a new path forward can present our choice of solutions over persistent problems. I can remember when I started my leadership journey, handling a faculty that was carved out of the “us against them” mentality . . . .
School leaders need to leverage change when faced with this. Considering challenges like this remind me of a hit dystopian show, The Handmaid’s Tale. In it, The Eyes are the secret police of Gilead—ubiquitous, invisible, and terrifying. They don’t just enforce laws; they create a climate in which everyone becomes a volunteer spy, terrified that a coworker, friend, or neighbor is documenting and reporting their every “indiscretion.”
When a school culture mirrors this, we are stuck in our own dystopia; it becomes a place where teachers and leaders look over their shoulder instead of at their students.
Here is how that toxic dynamic manifests, and how a principal can act as a buffer to disrupt–or better yet–dismantle it.
The Faculty Lounge as a Surveillance Hub
In a toxic school environment, “The Eyes” are not a formal department but rather a culture of lateral surveillance through which staff members monitor each other’s clock-in times, lesson plan quality, curriculum delivery, or management styles.
This is rarely done to help; instead, it is used to gather “intel.” In these places, gossip serves as a weaponized currency used to gain power, influence, or divert attention from personal insecurities. When mistakes occur—whether it is a parent complaint or a botched lesson—the immediate instinct is not to solve the problem, but to find a scapegoat.
The Principal as a Protective Shield
School leaders need to own this problem even if they didn’t create it. They must consistently and respectfully manage these “blamers,” responsibilities, problems, and complaints back to their rightful owners.
Principals must act as a shield that absorbs negativity from those attempting to weaponize others’ vulnerabilities so it doesn’t crush the staff morale, or worse, hamper their impact on children.
This process begins by actively filtering the “intel.” When a staff member attempts to “report” a colleague’s minor infraction, formally or informally, a protective principal shuts it down, redirecting rather than using that perceived, or worse, real power to build a file on a peer.
The principal must redirect by shifting the focus from who made a mistake to what went wrong with the system. For example, if an assembly fails because of a technical error, the leader pivots others from blaming an individual to analyzing how to make the technical checklist more transparent for everyone.
By practicing accountability and absorbing the shock for others’ mistakes, the principal removes the incentive for staff to blame one another. If the leader says, “That’s on me,” the staff no longer needs a scapegoat, unless that scapegoat becomes twisted into the principal to blame (more on that later).
Building a Sanctuary of Practice
Disrupting this culture requires an intentional focus on psychological safety. School leaders must move the environment away from a system of surveillance and secrecy toward one of support and transparency. Instead of monitoring for mistakes, the leader transforms the organization to monitoring for needs. This shift replaces finger-pointing with process analysis and ensures equity, through which everyone is held to the same clear standard rather than utilizing toxic informants.
When a principal refuses to allow staff to throw each other under the bus, the “Eyes” eventually lose sight of the cause. If snickering, spying, and sabotage no longer result in social or professional capital, the behavior is minimized, or better yet, stops altogether.
By serving as a filter, the principal can build a safe practice space. Teachers begin to take risks and innovate because they know that if they stumble, their leader will catch them rather than let the “Eyes” report them.
If All Else Fails: Dismantling “The Eyes”
Sometimes, despite your best efforts to empower decent people, a toxic culture has taken deep root. If all else fails, you have to look at the climate of surveillance that the police state has built and act to dismantle it. Break up the group!
The vocal, negative minority rarely perform their negativity in a vacuum and thrive on a specific kind of fuel: an audience. These cliques require the middle-of-the-road teachers to watch, nod, or remain silently compliant.
Neutralizing a negative clique is about protecting the classroom for those who are there for their kids. This process starts by identifying the ringleaders—often veterans with high informal influence—and addressing them with surgical precision. By dealing with these bad actors individually and privately, the leader prevents the public access to the theater of their “gotcha” moments, removing their ammunition of derailment, ensuring the oxygen in the room remains focused on student growth rather than adult grievances.
As the leader works to shut the “Eyes,” systems thinking becomes a silent form of cultural reorganization. Because negative energy is highly contagious in close quarters, the architect of a “win-win” faculty thoughtfully disperses these magnets away from one another, breaking up the echo chambers in which gossip acts as a weapon.
When the focus shifts from the challenging individuals to the majority who stand together for children over power, the social capital of the negative group begins to deteriorate. By giving the best teachers the loudest voice and the most significant influence, the principal makes it socially “uncool” to join the surveillance culture. If spying and sabotage no longer result in proximity to power, the “Eyes” eventually go blind.
Administrative transfers are equivalent to retirement and other “miracles,” when relocating individuals to different departments, grade levels, or schools permanently disrupts the clique’s daily operational power.
In the end, the goal is to curate a faculty in which every member is invested. By removing these final toxic roadblocks, the leader ensures that the negative individuals move on to environments better suited for them, while the remaining staff finally finds the psychological safety they need to thrive, innovate, and look forward instead of over their shoulders.