Understand how toxic behaviours can manifest in staff and how to repair those relationships, with Andrew Cowley.
In the first article of this two-part series, we looked at the traits and possible consequences of a toxic school. Here we will consider how toxicity can develop among colleagues in a culture where staff relationships are under strain.
Toxic leadership
The most quoted cause of toxicity is often leadership. This could be the headteacher or could be other members of the leadership team, especially if there are professional or personal tensions between them.
Poor leadership prioritises performance and data ahead of the health and wellbeing of staff. Whilst headteachers are judged on data, reasoning that this is why they hold staff to account doesn’t excuse some behaviours. Micromanagement should not be an expected norm. Teachers should be accorded trust and respect if they adhere to reasonable policy requirements. A climate of fear and anxiety can undermine confidence and make teachers begin to doubt themselves. When staff are called out over the angles of staples on displays or fonts in PowerPoints, nobody is making the best use of their time.
Toxic leadership is also represented by a lack of structure for staff making them feel unsupported and disempowered. This can create a culture of fear, putting staff under pressure by picking holes in even insignificant matters and creating a perception that something has been done wrong. This creates high levels of stress and anxiety and a hostile environment. The worst manifestation of this is the oxymoronic ‘support plan’, the widespread use of which has recently been discussed in various social media groups. These plans aren’t supportive in the least; they are tools to force staff out. Too often staff do leave or become long-term sickness absentees. This high turnover and stress typifies the most toxic environments.
The worst leadership behaviours are nasty. From bullying of staff to fuelling cliques and gossip, from suspected hacking into emails to public humiliation, from blaming others for their own mistakes to playing the victim when things go sour. There is a point when toxicity manifests itself as narcissism.
Disconnected leadership is another toxic trait. The opposite of micromanagement is the leader not getting the big picture, by leaving key tasks they should be handling to other leaders. They may also not model their values and expectations, leading to uncertainty of their moral purpose. Such leaders will also be disconnected from pupils and parents, leaving them isolated and lacking visibility. Disconnected leaders also have a lack of connection to the realities of wellbeing. Cake in the staffroom and Friday yoga doesn’t make up for concerns about behaviour, time-heavy and impact-light marking policies, or long hours and short deadlines.
Toxic leaders don’t see the impact their actions have on wellbeing. There are still schools that require planning to be emailed to SLT by a Friday evening, ready to receive this back by Sunday for ‘corrections’. Such a culture is a drain on time and feeds cognitive overload. Eating into the weekend invades personal and quality time. We need teachers in our schools who have fulfilled and happy lives outside of school, not a life where the workplace impacts their personal lives, health and relationships.
Toxic colleagues
Toxicity can come from elsewhere in the school and, unchecked, can lead to challenges to a positive culture that leadership is trying to create. There are many leaders who strive to promote a healthy culture of wellbeing but who find the staff they work with can be a barrier to change.
People do not become toxic when they assume a leadership position. There are elements of leadership training which develop professional challenge and holding colleagues to account, but no leadership training encourages behaviours which undermine mental health or bullying colleagues into submission. Leaders who are toxic were toxic on their way up the career ladder.
Leaders need to be aware of the relationships within their staff body. Being distant, aloof or disconnected doesn’t allow this. Relying upon snippets of information or gossip allow a clear picture to emerge. A leader who is ‘present’ and interacts with colleagues regularly can build a picture of the professional relationships within the staff. Spend time in the staffroom, balance formal meetings with informal chats and get to know your staff, what motivates them personally and professionally. Using a tool like a sociogram allows an analysis of the relationships with staff, highlighting who is more isolated, who is more extroverted, who is a dominant character, who is toxic.
Example of a sociogram for strong bonds. There are letters inside circles, with arrows pointing between them. The letters represent staff names and the arrows indicate which staff members are connected.
An example of a sociogram for issues/negative bonds. Circles with letters in (to represent names) with a lot of interconnecting arrows linking names together to show the relationships between staff members.
A dominant character among the staff can be problematic if they act as a challenge to leadership. This could be subtle rather than overt and difficult to challenge but, if left, can undermine the culture of a workplace. Typically, this might involve someone dominating conversations and drawing the attention of younger and less experienced colleagues. Be wary of anyone taking a new teacher under their wing, especially if they are not an appointed mentor. Such a character will also be the kind of person found in colleagues’ classrooms after school and difficult to get rid of. These interactions could, of course, be entirely innocent but if a change in attitude or behaviour emerges, then clearly influence has been had. Some colleagues are negative because change is worrying or threatening but others can impact the mindset of teachers against leadership of the school.
Be aware too of colleagues who feel isolated, unwilling to attend the staffroom because of gossip or the dominance of individuals or a group or who are left out of social functions. This may mean keeping alert to personal comments made in public about colleagues, especially when they aren’t in the room. Where this becomes a habit, it can be extremely unpleasant to deal with.
What can be done?
To address toxicity in the school, there first has to be an understanding of the relationships within the workplace and where the issues lie:
- Use the sociogram (mentioned in part 1) to identify where toxic behaviours are rooted and who is negatively impacted. Put support in place for those who have been subject to bullying, unfair criticism or social isolation. Consider also some training in people management and in professional conversations.
- Address any concern over reporting toxic behaviours for fear of any consequences. There is particularly a fear around holding leaders to account for bullying because of the impact this action could have on future career opportunities and references. Be clear on how concerns should be raised, who will investigate and what the timeline will be for the process.
- Make exit interviews effective by using them as a genuine analysis of reasons staff move on, not as a paper exercise. Staff moving for career advancement or opportunity is a positive; colleagues leaving because of a poor culture is something that requires more analysis.
We also need to show a measure of emotional intelligence, an awareness of and a reflection upon how words, actions and attitudes can impact your colleagues.
- Employ a coaching-based approach. Look at scenarios which might be considered challenging and ask, ‘How might this have been handled differently?’ or ‘How would this make you feel?’ to encourage reflection on what constitutes good professional conduct.
- Model and use professional language at all times, including the use of facial expressions, body language and tone of voice.
- Praise in public, challenge in private. Public rebukes cause embarrassment and undermine confidence.
All these suggested actions are aimed at shifting the culture in a school. This will take time and patience, but some need actioning with rigour and urgency to stop toxic school cultures pushing teachers and other staff out of school and out of the profession.
Author
Andrew Cowley is an experienced former primary school teacher and DHT. He now coaches mental health leaders for Carnegie Centre of Excellence at Leeds Beckett University and is the author of 'The Wellbeing Toolkit', 'The Wellbeing Curriculum' and the forthcoming 'The School Mental Health Toolkit'.
