10 Responses

1. At a recent cultural event, one of our teachers became quite overwhelmed when things weren’t meeting her expectations. She began getting frustrated with students, so I quietly asked her to take a short break while I looked after her group. Later, at morning tea, we had an open chat about what had happened.

   Through that kōrero, I learned that she was feeling unheard by another SLT member and had some personal challenges that were adding pressure. There had been a lot of misinterpretation between her and others. We talked it through, put some supports in place, and I checked in with her daily until she felt more settled.

   This situation reminded me how calm, compassionate communication can defuse tension and rebuild trust. Sometimes the most powerful leadership act is to pause, listen deeply, and make space for others to feel heard.

   Log in to Reply

2. This example of using the 7 Cs of communication has been a delicate one. I have had to speak with a staff member about their lack of efficiency with paperwork and particularly applications for in-class support. This staff member has become adept at stonewalling and explaining away why deadlines are not being met.
   Part of their reasoning is an intense desire to present work that is as close to perfection as possible, however this has led to large blowouts of timelines and impacted getting quick support for students.
   I have had to carefully shape communications, both written and verbal, to this staff member, reminding them of the impact their behaviour is having on students, the leadership team and the families involved. This staff member is also very sensitive to criticism and often shuts down when questioned in their ‘area of expertise’.
   Linked to their desire for perfection is an unwillingness to attribute their name to applications that may not be successful and an inability to efficiently manage their time. Contrary to what I have read in some of the resources for these modules, I have had to create a certain distance with this staff member. At first I tried using the rhetoric triangle, appealing to them through emotion, logic, and credibility, then I tried the 4 methods of communicating with empathy. However, these did not create the change we needed. In fact, it seemed to worsen the situation, as they seemed to think that I was building a friendship with them that would allow them to continue as they were. These methods have worked very well with the other teachers in the school, however this person has taken it in a completely new direction.
   That was when I changed to the 7 Cs emphasising a courteous but professional relationship. Some changes have been made grudgingly by this staff member, but I am still working through the best way to approach them about meeting all expectations. We may just be in the awkward phase where they are learning if school expectations are ‘flexible’ or not. I intend to continue communicating with them using the 7 Cs to hopefully arrive at a positive result by the end of the school year.

   Log in to Reply

3. We had been informed in the last week of Term 3 that we would be enrolling two new high medical needs learners. Given the short notice we met as an SLT and had to adjust our TA timetable to ensure that we had 1 to 1 cover for these two students by the beginning of Term 4.
   It was a tricky process to navigate as it involved re-assessing the risk management needs of our current TA supported students.
   As we have limited TA’s and funding available some of our students had to unfortunately lose their support.
   We designed a new TA timetable and met with the TA’s to explain that the timetable was still a draft and that changes had been made that would affect the students they were working with and the classes they would be assigned to.
   This draft timetable was sent out to staff and TA’s at the end of Term 3 with an explanation of the changes required.
   One of our teachers expressed concern and was upset that they had not been consulted or been involved in the change process and took it personally that one of the TA’s had reduced hours in her class.
   As a leadership team we always try to be transparent and collaborative with our teams. Unfortunately in this circumstance given the short notice changes had to be made without the opportunity for consultation.
   After a conversation explaining the ‘why’ and the process involved the staff member understood the reasons behind the changes.
   Communication is key and as a SLT team we try to communicate 3 ways, face to face, email and phone to ensure clarity and understanding.

   Log in to Reply

4. A new but experienced staff member asked about planning and the school’s expectations when they started this year. They interpreted the responses and looked at examples. They then created a model that they believed would work for them, in line with their previous experiences and that they felt met the expectations. During a Term 1 check-in, we discussed the planning format they were using and how it was working for them. We also discussed changes that needed to be made to further align with the school’s expectations. At the beginning of Term 2, while reviewing the planning, I realised that very few changes had been made and that the planning still did not align fully with the school’s expectations. While the teacher was on CRT and working in their space, I went over to discuss the planning, taking more examples. This discussion was very effective; the teacher involved explained her planning rationale more clearly to me so that I understood why they were doing what they were doing. They also explained that they found their planning process quite frustrating as it took ‘forever to do’. During the discussion, we used examples and aspects from their current model that worked for them to devise a simplified version that met all the school’s expectations. The teacher was excited to use this new simplified model.

   The conversation was respectful and gave the teacher a voice, but also allowed me to reinforce the school’s expectations. Holding the conversation in their space also made it feel less like a “you’re in trouble” conversation and more like a “how can we help” conversation, maintaining the trust that we had built in the short time the teacher had been at our school.

   Log in to Reply

5. In my current role, I encountered a situation where the line between relational and professional trust was blurred. Relational trust is built on mutual respect, empathy, and personal connection, while professional trust is grounded in role clarity, accountability, and follow-through. In this case, a beginning teacher was not being held accountable by their mentor—likely out of personal loyalty. Despite concerns from colleagues, action was delayed. After several attempts to address the matter through discussion, I had to step in and escalate the issue to the leadership team. While the intent may have been to preserve the relationship, the lack of timely intervention undermined professional standards and ultimately delayed support for both the teacher and their students. This experience reminded me that leadership communication must distinguish between the two types of trust. Trust does not mean avoiding hard conversations; it means having them with clarity, empathy, and in service of growth.

   1

   Log in to Reply

6. Recently, we faced a challenging situation with a growing Year 1 class that included several high-needs students. Four tamariki require one to one supervision to ensure they are safe as they are runners and actively try to leave the school grounds, two have toileting issues, one is ORRS funded – the addition of these children to the class make it very hard for the teachers to teach the class as they are managing behaviour constantly. To support teaching and learning, we proposed splitting the class and using a currently underutilized classroom space. This required a sensitive conversation with our Te Reo teacher, whose teaching space would be affected. Aware of the cultural significance of the room and the tikanga involved, we approached her personally, explained the rationale behind our thinking, and gave her time to process the proposal. Though initially upset, she appreciated being heard. By actively listening and showing respect for her perspective, we were able to collaboratively find a solution that worked for everyone. This experience reinforced how transparent, empathetic communication builds trust and leads to better outcomes for staff and tamariki alike.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Really appreciate you sharing this, Vicky. It’s a great example of how just being open and respectful can go a long way. I liked how you talked to the Te Reo teacher face-to-face and gave her space to take it in—that kind of approach really matters, especially when tikanga is involved. It reminded me of something at my school where the relationship side kind of got in the way of doing what needed to be done. Things dragged out longer than they should’ve, and support for the teacher and students was delayed. Your story is a good reminder that trust isn’t about avoiding tricky stuff—it’s about being honest, listening properly, and still following through. Thanks again for sharing—it really hit home.

      1

      Log in to Reply

7. We have had a 5 year old transition out of our Transition class, and our team leader discussed with me some of the options of class placement for this student. We looked at the pro’s and con’s and thought about best placement for the child. the team leader decided that the student would have a visit to each room to see how they got on, then we would talk again. After the visits, I recieved emails separately from each teacher, outlining why they wouldn’t be a suitable option for this wee boy. To be honest, some of the reasons ceertainly weren’t valid, however, I could hear that niether of these teachers were keen on having him. In the end, the team leader and I made a decision of his new class placement. The next day, our team leader shared the chosen class via email to all involved, ie both teachers and myself. The teacher who will be supporting this boy, was away on the day, and recieved the email at home. Once recieving the email, straight away I felt, that a phone call or in person conversation would have been best to have prior to sending out the email, to discuss why we made that decision. So after double checking that this conversation hadn’t been had with staff member, I phoned and felt an apology was in order in the fact that she hadn’t been told prior to genreal sharing, and that we did hear her reasons etc. Whilst this is only a small example, it was definately a good choice to talk with her, for her to express her concerns and worries, then move on, being aware and supported her as required.
   Key Communication Strategies and Their Impact on Trust:
   What Worked:
   1.Collaborative planning with the team leader showed thoughtful decision-making and built trust.
   2.After the selected teacher was informed via email (while away), you made a personal phone call to acknowledge the oversight and offer support. This helped restore trust and showed empathy.
   What Didn’t Work:
   1.The selected teacher wasn’t consulted personally before the decision was shared publicly, which may have made her feel excluded or undervalued.
   2.Using email for a sensitive decision (especially when the teacher was away) lacked a personal touch.
   3.Emails from other teachers declining the student lacked constructive reasoning, showing a missed opportunity for open dialogue.
   Impact:
   Initial trust was impacted by the lack of direct communication, but my follow up helped repair it.
   This situation highlights that how we communicate is just as important as what we communicate — especially in decisions affecting others.

   Log in to Reply

8. We have been trialling a new approach to our maths planning and teaching. I was checking in on how this was going and attended the Year 4-6 teams next planning meeting. One particular team, when I arrived at their meeting, were quite defensive about the new approach. They were asking questions about why they had to do it, that it didn’t make sense to them etc. Using some of the tips, instead of launching into it why were doing it, why they needed to do it or that it was mandated, I approached it from a curious point of view. I asked, what are the barriers you are coming up against? What parts of it do make sense to you? What parts are you struggling with or feeling a lack of clarity? By asking more questions I was able to get to the bottom of the issue which was actually that they were including all the components in their planning the only barrier was fitting it into 10 days. The messaging had been lost along the way and they had got hung up on one aspect of the programme. Once they had the freedom to make parts of it their own and include the components (that they already were including) they left happy.

   I think it was interesting really getting deeper into what was and wasn’t working as if I had gone in with the message of this is how it’s done we would have got no where. At the end of the conversation they felt heard and it made sense to them going forward but they felt they had some autonomy still on how they were implementing these changes within their own team.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Morning Jessica….what an outstanding example of what Covey coined as Seek first to understand before being understood. I wish someine had shared this with me much earlier in my career. A real game changer.

      Log in to Reply