The Compass

In my recent post, From Oversight to Insight, I made the case that line-management conversations, when thoughtfully led, can be quietly transformative. They’re not just accountability checkpoints — they’re opportunities to build clarity, capacity, and trust.

But what happens when those conversations don’t feel that way?

Sometimes, it’s not what’s said in a one-to-one that matters most — but how it’s said, how often, and what it reveals about the line-manager’s priorities.

To explore this, I’ve adapted the Thomas-Kilmann conflict model to frame line-management interactions not as conflicts, but as signals of how much a leader values a given issue, and how much they value the relationship.

Here’s what it looks like:

(more…)

A well-chaired line management meeting is calm, structured, and quietly transformative. Done well, it doesn’t just support the work – it can shape the culture. It helps people reconnect to purpose, realign with strategy, and recommit to their own professional growth. Over time, consistently well-led meetings don’t just serve individuals – they shape the organisation itself.

But when handled poorly, line management becomes one of the most wasted opportunities in any workplace – reduced to a box-ticking exercise at best, or at worst, a slow erosion of trust, morale, and momentum.

I’ve experienced both ends of the spectrum. The time I sat across from a boss who, without looking up from his laptop, continued typing an email while I waited awkwardly for the meeting to begin. On another occasion, the tone of questioning was so unusually pointed and calculated that, at the time, it felt less like a collegial dialogue and more like an exercise in scrutiny, unsettling in its intensity.” Neither exchange left me feeling seen, supported, or motivated to do better – and both made me think hard about the kind of leader I wanted to be.

In contrast, some of the most impactful line management conversations I’ve had haven’t always been with high-performing colleagues gliding from success to success, but with those who were stuck – professionally, personally, or even within the parameters of a competency process. When done well, these meetings became moments of clarity, connection, and forward movement toward steps that suddenly felt both visible and possible. But equally, great line management recognises when someone is thriving – and enables them to fly higher. It should lift, not just steady.

If we take our cue from the best thinking in leadership, coaching, and organisational development, line management meetings shouldn’t be a performance review in disguise. They should be structured opportunities to listen, support, challenge, and build capacity – for others and for ourselves. And over time, consistent conversations like these help align the behaviour of teams with the values and direction of the whole organisation.

Here’s how.

(more…)

Few concepts in school leadership provoke as much quiet scepticism as distributed leadership. For many teachers, the idea that “everyone leads” feels less like empowerment and more like exploitation — a way for senior leaders to offload initiatives without proper recognition, reward, or respect. It is seen, often correctly, as aping corporate jargon: a glossy label for asking the most ambitious and capable staff to carry extra burdens. Such mistrust is not unfounded, and any honest discussion about leadership in schools must begin by acknowledging these concerns.

Yet beneath the poor implementations and hollow slogans, there remains a valuable idea worth rescuing: the fostering of leadership attributes among teachers. Not in the service of overloading them with others’ work, but as part of helping them grow in confidence, autonomy, and influence within the school community.

So perhaps it is not distributed leadership that deserves our attention, but rather the deeper recognition that leadership — thoughtfully nurtured — is already part of what many teachers do, and could become even stronger with support.

(more…)