Leaked messages: how implicit signalling shapes school culture

'the expectations we project unconsciously shape our interactions and mutually influence behaviour' Narinder Gill FCCT NPQEL

Leaders in education speak often and in many formats but the communication that most powerfully shapes school culture is rarely delivered in a meeting or written in a policy. It is the unspoken signalling - where leaders choose to spend their time, how they respond to everyday situations, what they praise publicly and what they quietly overlook - that tells staff what is truly valued in a school. These repeated behaviours form a pattern of implicit messaging, and over time, this shapes both teacher motivation and the broader culture more powerfully than any strategic document. Narinder Gill calls this ‘leaked expectations’ and it is something that resonates with my own experience a great deal.

Implicit messaging refers to the cues staff absorb through leaders’ behaviours and routines rather than their formal statements. A headteacher who begins the day by being present in classrooms sends a different message about priorities than one who spends the morning firefighting emails. Similarly, when praise is directed more toward compliance with paperwork than toward thoughtful lesson design, staff draw conclusions about what the organisation values. These signals work beneath the surface: they constitute the lived reality of what matters in the school far more than stated values or posters on walls.

Research shows why these silent signals matter so much. School leadership influences student learning primarily through indirect pathways, shaping the conditions in which teachers work rather than through direct instruction. Scholars such as Leithwood and colleagues (2006; Leithwood & Louis, 2012) have shown that effective leadership sets direction, builds people and creates supportive environments for teaching. Instructional leadership - the form of leadership that centres on classrooms and pedagogy - is consistently linked to improved teacher practice and improved student outcomes (Robinson, Lloyd & Rowe, 2008). At the same time, organisational culture research emphasises that visible behaviours signal deeper assumptions. Schein’s work (1990, 2004) highlights that leaders shape culture by role-modelling because people watch what leaders actually do and infer what is truly important. Similarly, Edmondson (1999) shows that team learning depends on psychological safety, which is heavily influenced by leaders’ everyday actions, particularly their tolerance of risk-taking and their openness to learning. Staff also interpret leader behaviour through pre-existing mental models - what implicit leadership theory calls “prototypes” of leadership (Lord et al., 1984; Epitropaki & Martin, 2005). Small, consistent signals therefore accumulate into firm perceptions about what leadership values most. And, a consistent body of research argues that leadership is second only to classroom instruction in its influence on student outcomes because of its effects on teacher motivation, morale and professional efficacy (Leithwood et al., 2006; Day et al., 2016).

When leaders’ implicit signals emphasise teaching and learning, the resulting culture is markedly different from one driven by compliance. A leader who spends time in classrooms, asks thoughtful questions about pedagogy, and celebrates professional growth communicates that teaching craft matters. When leaders acknowledge risk-taking, share their own learning journeys and demonstrate vulnerability, they help build the psychological safety Edmondson (1999) describes as essential for innovation. If time and resources are consistently allocated to professional dialogue, curriculum planning and coaching, teachers feel supported to refine their practice. Over time, this cultivates a culture of genuine collaboration and continuous improvement. Research on instructional leadership and school culture (Robinson et al., 2008; Day et al., 2016) consistently shows that such environments produce higher teacher motivation and better outcomes for students.

In contrast, when implicit signals revolve around compliance, paperwork and control, a very different message is received. If leadership visibility is centred on meeting rooms, data scrutiny or behaviour logs, rather than on classrooms, staff infer that administrative performance matters more than instructional quality. When leaders publicly recognise punctual paperwork but rarely acknowledge pedagogical innovation, teachers internalise that compliance is valued above creativity. This can lead to a culture where staff “go through the motions,” completing tasks to satisfy systems rather than engaging deeply with their teaching. Schein’s work (1990, 2004) helps explain how such behaviours become embedded as cultural norms: people adapt to what is rewarded, and routines become assumptions. Over time, risk-taking declines, teacher enthusiasm diminishes, and innovation stalls.

A small illustrative example demonstrates how quickly these dynamics can take hold. Imagine a headteacher who consistently attends one team’s weekly lesson study and enthusiastically celebrates their exploratory work on student learning. At the same time, other leaders publicly admonish staff in different teams for administrative oversights. Teachers quickly notice these patterns. In the lesson-study team, pedagogical risk-taking grows because it feels safe and valued; in the other teams, the conversation narrows to compliance and accountability. This divergence is not the result of explicit directives but of the cumulative power of implicit messaging - behaviour triggers interpretation, which shapes habits, which ultimately becomes culture.

For leaders who want their implicit messaging to reinforce a learning-first culture, there are several practical implications. Being intentionally visible in classrooms is critical because presence communicates priority, echoing Hallinger’s work on instructional leadership (2011). Recognising and rewarding professional growth rather than merely outcomes helps to signal that learning is valued. Modeling learning behaviours by admitting mistakes and sharing personal development goals fosters the psychological safety described by Edmondson (1999). Aligning routines and resource allocation with these ideals - for example, protecting time for planning and coaching - provides concrete evidence of the school’s priorities (Leithwood & Louis, 2012). Middle leaders also play a crucial role, as they often shape staff perceptions through their daily interactions (Frost, 2012). Ensuring they understand their own implicit signals is essential. And finally, leaders must test whether their implicit messages match their intentions by asking staff what they believe leadership values most.

Ultimately, formal policies tell teachers what they should do, but implicit messages tell them what they will do. If leaders truly want a school where teachers feel empowered to grow, innovate and refine their craft, they must embody those priorities every day. Small, consistent acts of instructional leadership and learning-focused behaviour send powerful signals that accumulate into a culture of professional excellence. When leaders unintentionally foreground compliance, the culture shifts toward minimalism and box-ticking. Culture follows the quietest signals, and the leaders who understand this will be the ones who shape schools where great teaching thrives.

Reference List:

Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). The moderating role of individual differences in the relation between transformational/transactional leadership perceptions and organizational identification. Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 569–589.

Frost, D. (2012). Middle leaders: Intermediaries in school leadership. In The Routledge Companion to Education (pp. 168–179).

Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142.

Leithwood, K., & Louis, K. S. (2012). Linking Leadership to Student Learning. Jossey-Bass.

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S, & Wahlstrom, K. (2006). How Leadership Influences Student Learning. The Wallace Foundation.

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343–378.

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.