Harnessing the Power of Gossip

A school leader I once worked with understood something that many leaders overlook: culture doesn’t just live in policies, meetings, or mission statements—it lives in conversations.

Before formally releasing a new strategy, they would first quietly share the idea with two or three individuals known for being well connected within the informal social fabric of the school. These were people others spoke to. People others listened to. People through whom information naturally travelled. They would tell them the idea, and then wait.

Over the following week, the strategy would circulate informally. It would be discussed in corridors, mentioned in passing, and reflected upon in staffrooms. Staff would begin forming opinions—not because they had been instructed to, but because culture had carried the idea to them. This leader wasn’t just sharing information. They were listening to culture.

If the reaction was negative—if the idea created anxiety, frustration, or resistance—they would pause, reconsider, and often abandon the proposal entirely. If, however, the idea was accepted—or even quietly supported—they would formally introduce it. By that point, the ground had already been prepared. Staff had time to process it. It no longer felt sudden or imposed. Resistance was lower because the culture had already begun absorbing the change.

This approach reveals something fundamental: culture determines whether strategy succeeds or fails long before it is formally announced.

Schools operate on two parallel structures. There is the formal structure—the organisational charts, leadership teams, and official channels. But there is also the informal structure—the networks of trust, influence, and conversation that exist beneath the surface. It is this informal structure that often determines how change is received.

This is not to suggest leaders should manipulate culture. Trust, once broken, is difficult to rebuild. But it does highlight an important principle: effective leaders don’t impose change on culture—they work with it.

Change is not just a technical process. It is a cultural one. Dan Rockwell explores a related idea in his 2022 blog post, “How to Gossip Like a Leader,” where he describes the concept of reverse gossip, shared with him by Bob Burg. Instead of allowing informal conversations to default toward complaint or criticism, leaders can intentionally redirect them by asking staff to share something positive about someone who isn’t present.

This simple shift has profound cultural consequences. It surfaces the contributions of “unsung heroes”—those who quietly strengthen the school without recognition. It builds collective appreciation. It reinforces the behaviours leaders want to see more of. And perhaps most importantly, it reshapes the emotional tone of everyday conversation.

Because culture is not shaped in assemblies or PowerPoints. It is shaped in the quiet, repeated conversations between colleagues. What leaders tolerate in those conversations becomes culture. What leaders amplify in those conversations becomes culture faster.

Ultimately, gossip itself is neither good nor bad. It is simply evidence of culture at work. It reflects what people care about, what they fear, and what they value.

The question for school leaders is not whether informal conversations exist. They always will. The question is whether you are listening closely enough to understand what they are telling you about your culture.

Because culture does not spread through announcements. It spreads through people.

Read More

When Leaders Become the Bottleneck

Philip Gift, a U.S. Navy helicopter pilot, argues that leadership bottlenecks can be traced back to technological developments during the First World War. In his Military Leaders blog post, “The Leadership Bottleneck: What happens when managers and leaders cross lines,” he highlights how the telegram transformed decision-making. For the first time, kings, generals, and foreign ministers could issue instructions instantly from hundreds of miles away. Decisions no longer needed to be made by those closest to the situation. Instead, authority could be centralised—physically distant, yet operationally present.

On the surface, this represented progress. Communication became faster, coordination more efficient, and control more centralised. But it also introduced a hidden risk: the emergence of leadership bottlenecks.

When decisions flow upwards too easily, they often stop there. Responsibility concentrates in fewer hands. Those closest to the problem—the people with the clearest understanding of context—can become passive recipients of instruction rather than active decision-makers. Over time, this doesn’t just slow organisations down; it reshapes their culture.

Schools are not immune to this dynamic. Modern technology—email, messaging platforms, management systems—means school leaders can be involved in every decision, no matter how small. While this can create a sense of oversight, it can also unintentionally signal something deeper: that authority resides at the top, and initiative resides elsewhere.

Culture is shaped not just by what leaders say, but by what they allow others to do. When staff feel they must seek permission for routine decisions, a culture of dependency begins to form. Teachers stop acting autonomously. Middle leaders stop leading. Initiative is replaced by compliance. Over time, the organisation becomes slower, quieter, and more fragile—not because staff lack capability, but because culture has taught them not to act.

This is the modern leadership bottleneck. And like its First World War counterpart, it is enabled by technology—but sustained by culture. Philip Gift argues that breaking through these bottlenecks requires two things: face-to-face interaction and a clear organisational structure with defined roles and responsibilities. Both are fundamentally cultural acts.

Face-to-face interaction builds trust. Trust creates confidence. Confidence enables autonomy. Clear roles and responsibilities create clarity about who decides what. But more importantly, they signal belief. They communicate that leadership is not confined to titles—it is distributed through the organisation.

In schools with strong cultures, decisions do not accumulate at the top. They flow to the person best placed to make them. Senior leaders set direction, but they do not become a barrier. They create clarity, not dependency. This is not about relinquishing accountability. It is about creating capacity.

A school culture free from bottlenecks is one where:

• Teachers feel trusted to make professional decisions

• Middle leaders act, rather than wait

• Senior leaders focus on strategy, rather than control

• Responsibility is clear, visible, and lived

Ultimately, leadership bottlenecks are not just structural problems—they are cultural ones. They emerge when systems centralise authority, but they persist when culture reinforces it. The lesson from the telegram is not about technology. It is about proximity. The closer decisions are to the people who understand the work, the healthier the culture becomes.

Because strong school cultures are not built on control. They are built on clarity, trust, and the confidence to act.

Read More