How Policy Wording Can Harm an International School Culture

In an international and indeed any school, the wording of policies plays a critical role in shaping the relationship between employees and the organisation. This is especially so when teachers are far from home and working in an uncertain environment. Missteps are not only possible but probable when faced with new and challenging circumstances in foreign cultures. Policies are more than just documents; they reflect the values, expectations, and leadership approach of the school. Poorly worded policies—especially those that signal punitive action for minor or accidental indiscretions—can negatively impact school culture and the willingness of staff to go above and beyond. In my experience, overly punitive policy wording can erode trust, promote fear-based leadership, and ultimately harm the learning environment for those who matter most. It’s the small personal touches, usually unnoticed, that make educational experiences special, and without genuine teacher engagement, they are rare.

?

Punitive Policies and the Employer-Employee Relationship

The language used in a school's policy can often signal the type of relationship it fosters between employer and employee. Policies that suggest punitive measures for accidental or minor infractions can create an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. If an organisation creates policies it would never apply in practice, these should not be formal policies but rather guidelines or expectations for behaviour. Punitive measures for minor transgressions imply a rigid, top-down approach to leadership, which undermines the spirit of collaboration and mutual respect in international schools.

As a simple but common example, a policy that threatens disciplinary action for tardiness, even if occasional and unintentional, signals that the school is more interested in control than understanding. Edmondson (2019) states, "Organisations that enforce punitive measures for minor errors often foster a culture where employees feel they are constantly under scrutiny, which stifles creativity and openness." Instead of a policy threatening punishment, a behaviour guideline encouraging punctuality with flexibility for legitimate delays might better serve the school's objectives. Edmonson argues that psychological safety—where employees feel safe to express ideas, ask questions, and admit mistakes without fear of punishment—fosters a culture of openness and trust. Edmondson also emphasises that organisations thrive when leaders strive to encourage open communication and promote an environment of trust where risks can be taken without fear of reprisals.

?

Trust vs. Rule by Fear

Policies that focus on micromanaging behaviour through fear of punishment or punative actions send a message that staff are viewed as commodities rather than valued contributors. When staff feel this way, they are less likely to be open and honest with the school. The worst possible outcome for a school is when honesty leads to punishment as this quietly communicates to the wider community that openness is risky and that people need to be on guard. The true, but hidden cost is the accumulation of many small decisions to disengage, draining the school of the genuine vibrancy that comes from staff feeling valued and willing to contribute beyond the bare minimum. Sure, from fear, people may fake enthusiasm, but it will be a facade, laking sustainable genuine vibrancy.

When policies exist but are not enforced consistently, this reinforces the idea that leadership is arbitrary. Cameron and Quinn (2011) argue, "Inconsistent enforcement of rules signals to employees that fairness is secondary to favoritism, which can quickly erode morale." For example, if one teacher is reprimanded for missing a deadline or a classroom infraction while another is not, it sends the message that the policy is selectively enforced depending on relationships. Such an environment can create tension and fear, as staff members are left wondering whether they will be the next target of punitive action if they are not ‘in the circle’. I have written before about the dangers of group-think and false positivity. A well-worded policy that is applied fairly and consistently, on the other hand, not only makes it clear what behaviours are expected, but also that all staff with be treated in ways that are focused on constructiveness for the whole organisation.

?

Guidelines vs. Strict Policies

In many cases, minor transgressions can be better managed through behavioural guidelines rather than strict, punitive policies. Behaviour guidelines set expectations but allow for a more flexible and nuanced response. For example, a school might encourage staff to notify their head of department in advance if they are running late, rather than threatening punitive action for every instance of tardiness. This approach signals that the school values transparency and accountability without resorting to strict disciplinary measures.

If an organisation would not strictly apply a policy, it should be reframed as a guideline or expectation. According to Kotter (2012), "Leadership that focuses on building trust and aligning people with organisational values is far more effective than rule-based systems that rely on fear of punishment." Repeated failure to meet expectations should certainly have implications for contract renewal, but a school that uses constructive dialogue rather than punitive actions is more likely to build a positive and engaged workforce.

?

The Dangers of Inconsistent Enforcement

One of the biggest dangers of punitive policies is inconsistent enforcement. If a school has policies that are not consistently applied, it signals to staff that they are at the mercy of school leaders. This creates a culture of uncertainty and anxiety, where staff members feel that they need to stay in the good graces of leadership to avoid punishment. Such an environment is harmful, as it promotes a sense of insecurity and discourages open communication and generous contribution. The cost is often hidden but that doesn’t make it insignificant.

An example of this would be a policy that states employees must submit lesson plans every week or face disciplinary action, but enforcement of this rule is irregular. Some teachers are pursued for plans, while others who may have ‘friendly relationships’ are not. Over time, this inconsistent application creates a culture where employees feel that their standing with leadership, rather than their performance, determines whether or not they are punished. As Mintzberg (2009) notes, "When rules are applied inconsistently, employees stop trusting that their efforts will be rewarded based on merit, leading to disengagement." Again, the cost is hidden but it doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

Instead, schools should rely on authentic leadership, where expectations are clearly communicated, and issues of non-compliance are addressed in mature and constructive discussions. Such an approach fosters mutual respect and collaboration between staff and leadership, which is essential for building a strong school culture. The other aspect of this is transparency. While it is essential to ensure privacy and protect the wellbeing of staff, it is also harmful to have a perception of inconsistency or favoritism. Clear, consistent, and transparent KPIs not only help people stay on track but also ensure that in instances of need, help can be offered. Most people want to see the people around them succeed and will help them if the need is genuine. They can’t do this if they don’t know.

?

Maintaining School Culture: Firing and the Law

There will, of course, be times when staff members consistently fail to meet expectations, and the school may need to terminate their employment. However, this process must be handled according to the law and with the school's reputation in mind. Schools that fail to adhere to legal standards not only risk damaging their reputation but also signal to other employees that they are expendable. At worst, they could build a reputation for mistrust that can extend to the parents of the students which harms enrolment, and on the wider labour market which harms either the cost or quality of future teachers. At best it is just a case of signalling the character of the leadership.

Maintaining a culture of mutual trust and engagement requires that even difficult decisions, such as termination, are handled with transparency and fairness. Doing so not only protects the school from legal repercussions but also ensures that the school culture remains one of trust rather than fear. "To retain a positive culture, leaders must always demonstrate fairness in all dealings, including when taking disciplinary action," notes Brown (2010). A win-win situation is usually possible and while some may think it would signal weak leadership, it is more likely to signal strength in leadership.

?

Final Thoughts

The wording of policies in an international school can have a profound impact on the culture of the institution. Punitive policies that aim to control behaviour signal a lack of trust in staff and can erode morale. If a policy is not meant to be strictly applied, it should be framed as a behavioural guideline, allowing for more flexibility and fostering open communication between staff and leadership. Inconsistent enforcement of policies creates an environment of insecurity, where employees feel that they are at the mercy of autocratic leadership. In addition, those that are favoured by this inconsistent management are likely to suffer isolation and longer-term mental health impacts that far outweigh the short-term benefits. Helping or hurting is the question.

Authentic leadership, visible role-modelling, and constructive dialogue are far more effective tools for maintaining a positive and productive school culture. If you are a leader, your people should meet expectations because they want to for you. What value does fear bring?

Ultimately, policies should serve to protect the valid interests of the school in both financial and operational terms, while supporting a culture of mutual trust and respect, fairness, and transparency. The winners are those who have no part in this - our future, the students.

?

References:

Brown, L. (2010). Fair Leadership: Building Trust in Organisations. Routledge.

(A must read for aspiring leaders)

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organisational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Jossey-Bass.

(Great for tools to help 'stop the rot')

Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The Fearless Organisation: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Wiley.

(A favourite read and the eight steps are a great guide)

Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.

(Kotter is a legend, as simple as that)

Mintzberg, H. (2009). Managing. Berrett-Koehler.

(I studied Mintzberg in my MBA and keep going back to refresh on the finer deatails of the three roles of a manager)