A school is not defined only by its infrastructure, examination results or strategic plans. It is defined by the relationships that shape its daily life. Within classrooms, teachers nurture young minds. Within staffrooms, however, teachers shape the culture that determines whether those classrooms thrive or struggle. When relationships among educators are grounded in trust, respect and shared purpose, institutions grow strong. When those relationships turn toxic, decline begins quietly — often unnoticed until the damage is serious.
Many conversations about school improvement focus on curriculum reform, infrastructure development, technology integration or policy shifts. These are important. Yet one of the most powerful determinants of a school’s success remains largely unspoken: the quality of professional relationships among teachers. Dysfunction in this area rarely makes headlines, but it can dismantle morale, fracture unity and compromise student achievement.
One of the most common toxic patterns in schools is rivalry that moves beyond healthy competition into personal antagonism. Professional competition can encourage excellence. It can push teachers to innovate, refine their methods and improve outcomes. However, when competition becomes rooted in ego rather than growth, collaboration fades. Teachers begin guarding their materials, withholding strategies that could benefit others, or quietly hoping colleagues falter. The focus shifts from collective progress to individual recognition. In such an atmosphere, unity dissolves. Students suffer when teachers prioritise personal validation over shared success.
Closely intertwined with rivalry is the formation of gossip alliances. These alliances are often informal and subtle. They emerge in corners of staffrooms, through private messages, or in conversations disguised as harmless discussion. Over time, they become structured networks built on rumor, speculation and character evaluation. Reputations are shaped not by evidence or dialogue, but by whispers. Trust, once eroded, is difficult to restore. When teachers become cautious about speaking openly for fear of becoming the next subject of discussion, transparency dies. Professional growth depends on open communication. Gossip replaces growth with suspicion.
Bullying among educators is another painful reality. Although society often associates bullying with students, adults are not immune to this behavior. Senior teachers may misuse their experience as leverage. Influence can become a tool for intimidation. Sarcastic remarks, harsh public corrections, exclusion from important conversations, or subtle humiliation can create a climate of fear. New teachers are particularly vulnerable. Instead of receiving mentorship, they may encounter hostility disguised as toughness. Fear suppresses creativity. A teacher who feels threatened cannot innovate freely. A culture of intimidation stifles potential.
Favouritism-based relationships also damage institutional harmony. When professional opportunities appear to depend more on personal closeness than competence, resentment spreads rapidly. Workshops, promotions, leadership responsibilities and desirable assignments must be distributed fairly. Even the perception of bias can fracture morale. Teachers who feel overlooked may disengage emotionally from the institution. Transparency in decision-making is not optional; it is foundational to credibility.
Undermining behaviour presents another destructive pattern. When teachers contradict each other in front of students, dismiss colleagues’ ideas publicly or question one another’s authority, they weaken the structure that maintains discipline and respect. Students quickly detect division. Once learners perceive that adults are not united, they may manipulate the cracks. Consistency among teachers strengthens classroom management. Disunity invites disorder.
Romantic or sexual relationships within the school environment, particularly where power imbalance exists, create serious ethical risks. A relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate compromises objectivity. Even if both parties believe the relationship is genuine, perceptions of bias can damage institutional integrity. Schools operate under heightened ethical expectations because they mould future generations. Boundaries must therefore be maintained carefully to protect both individuals and the institution’s credibility.
READ ALSO:
Incumbent retains Executive seat as new chair elected in Bungoma South KNUT polls
Cliques that promote exclusion further corrode professional unity. While friendships are natural, exclusionary groups create invisible divisions. New staff may struggle to integrate. Diverse perspectives may be dismissed. Informal information networks may be restricted to a few. Over time, collaboration narrows, and teamwork weakens. Schools thrive on inclusivity and collective engagement, not social segmentation.
Dependency relationships can also hinder professional growth. Collaboration is essential in education. However, when one teacher consistently relies on another for lesson planning, discipline strategies, or decision-making without developing independence, an imbalance develops. The supportive colleague may become overburdened, while the dependent teacher stagnates. Professional development requires both assistance and accountability.
Disrespect-based interactions slowly erode dignity. Persistent sarcasm, dismissive tones, eye-rolling during meetings or belittling remarks chip away at morale. Professional disagreement is healthy and necessary. However, habitual disrespect creates a toxic atmosphere where communication becomes strained. Respect is not mere politeness; it is recognition of professional equality and shared mission.
Resistance coalitions against school improvement can also stall progress. Constructive criticism strengthens institutions. It invites reflection and refinement. However, when groups form primarily to oppose change without offering constructive alternatives, stagnation results. Change in education is often uncomfortable. Yet resistance driven by fear or habit rather than thoughtful analysis limits growth.
Beyond these more visible dynamics lie subtler but equally damaging patterns.
Passive-aggressive behaviour can quietly sabotage institutional goals. Instead of addressing disagreements openly, individuals may delay tasks, comply half-heartedly or undermine initiatives indirectly. Outwardly, harmony appears intact. Internally, progress is blocked. Such behaviour breeds frustration and confusion.
Credit-stealing relationships generate resentment. When collaborative ideas are presented as individual achievements, or when one voice claims ownership of collective work, trust disintegrates. Recognition must be distributed fairly. Acknowledging shared contributions reinforces unity.
Emotional manipulation within professional relationships also undermines objectivity. Some individuals may use guilt, exaggerated grievances or victim narratives to influence decisions. Emotional pressure can distort rational processes. Institutions function best when decisions are guided by evidence, fairness and collective interest.
Transactional alliances built purely on convenience weaken loyalty. When relationships are formed solely for personal advantage — to secure influence, favourable timetables or strategic positions — commitment becomes unstable. Once interests shift, alliances collapse. Schools require relationships rooted in shared values, not temporary gain.
Isolationist behaviour presents another challenge. Teachers who detach from teamwork, avoid meetings or resist collaboration create silos within departments. Education thrives on shared planning and interdisciplinary cooperation. Isolation fragments the system.
Chronic negative partnerships can quickly spread pessimism. When teachers bond primarily over complaints, dissatisfaction becomes normalised. Innovation declines. Motivation fades. Energy drains from the institution. Constructive critique builds progress; chronic cynicism dismantles it.
Boundary-violating friendships blur professionalism. Over-familiarity that leads to sharing confidential information or aligning based on personal loyalty rather than institutional principles introduces ethical risks. Professional boundaries protect fairness.
Superiority complexes disguised as mentorship can also create imbalance. Genuine mentorship empowers colleagues to grow independently. False mentorship diminishes, positioning experienced teachers as gatekeepers rather than collaborators. Professional equality fosters respect and learning.
The cumulative effect of these toxic dynamics is profound. Morale declines gradually. Communication weakens. Collaboration becomes superficial. Eventually, institutional performance reflects the internal fractures. Academic results may dip. Staff turnover may increase. Leadership may struggle to implement reforms.
Students are not oblivious observers. They notice how teachers interact. They perceive tension in staff meetings, observe contradictions between teachers and sense when unity is absent. Young minds internalise behavioural models. If they witness division, rivalry and disrespect, those patterns may shape their own interactions. If they observe professionalism, fairness and collaboration, those values become embedded.
The health of a school’s relational culture influences not only staff well-being but also learner development. Teachers serve as role models. Their interactions demonstrate conflict resolution, teamwork and ethical conduct in real time.
Preventing toxic relationships requires intentional effort. Clear professional codes of conduct must be upheld. Leadership must model fairness and transparency. Open communication channels should be encouraged. Conflict resolution mechanisms must be accessible. Mentorship programs should focus on empowerment rather than control. Professional development should include training in interpersonal skills and ethical boundaries.
Self-reflection is equally important. Every educator must ask difficult questions: Do my actions promote unity or division? Do my words build or diminish colleagues? Do I contribute to solutions or amplify problems? Institutional culture is shaped by collective behaviour, but it begins with individual choices.
Schools rarely collapse overnight. They weaken gradually when professionalism gives way to ego, when unity yields to factionalism, and when shared purpose is replaced by personal agendas. Poison in the staffroom spreads quietly, through small interactions repeated daily.
Yet the opposite is also true. Positive relationships build resilient institutions. Collaboration strengthens academic outcomes. Mutual respect fosters innovation. Fairness inspires commitment. Integrity enhances credibility.
The future of any school depends not only on policies or budgets, but on the maturity and professionalism of its educators. A staff united by shared mission can overcome resource limitations and external pressures. A staff divided by toxic relationships cannot sustain excellence for long.
The choice remains clear. A school can be a fortress of integrity, collaboration and growth — or it can become a battlefield of silent conflicts and hidden agendas.
The difference is relational.
By Hillary Muhalya
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
>>> Click here to read more informed opinions on the country’s education landscape
