Schools regularly create conditions where adults feel pressured to share, contribute or display enthusiasm, even when the task is mismatched, personal context is unseen, and the activity does little to support meaningful professional learning. These are the contrived performances that quietly shape adult culture.
Schools often rely on familiar routines meant to build community, but these same routines can unintentionally pressure adults into performance. But many routines that fall under those banners do not invite authenticity.
Instead, they ask adults to show up in predetermined ways. They generate participation without belonging and create moments that are compliant rather than sincere.
Example 1: Icebreakers as performative rituals
Icebreakers persist because they are familiar, but they often ask adults to perform versions of themselves for group comfort. This does not mean all icebreakers should be eliminated. When designed intentionally and aligned to the purpose of the session, they can build connections.
The problem arises when they are used by default or without regard for context. Authenticity requires choice. Performance requires compliance.
Example 2: Agreeableness and the pressure to appear positive
In his TEDx talk, “Should You Fake Laugh at Your Boss’s Jokes?”, Randall S. Peterson describes why people in hierarchical settings often perform positivity when they do not feel it. The fake-laugh question is really a question about performance pressure and psychological safety. Faking positivity can lead to stress and anxiety.
Schools provide daily versions of this dynamic. Teachers nod through initiatives they doubt will work. Staff applaud PD moments even when the content feels thin. Teams announce consensus because disagreeing feels risky. Wins are celebrated loudly in public spaces while concerns remain private because candor feels unsafe.
When school leaders interpret these polished performances as genuine engagement, decisions are built on appearance rather than truth.
Example 3: Meetings that reward visibility over engagement
A third form of contrived performance appears in meetings—especially virtual ones. Educators are often asked to attend sessions that require no collaboration or decision-making. Information is delivered that could have been shared in an email, yet staff must remain on camera, nodding silently to demonstrate attentiveness.
A screen full of compliant faces is not evidence of shared purpose. It is evidence of a system where visibility substitutes for meaningful engagement.
When time is scarce, performative meetings drain energy that should be directed toward planning, reflection, or student support.
How performative behavior shows up and why it hurts schools
Across these examples, a clear pattern emerges: many adult routines reward visible participation over genuine engagement. These patterns do not arise from bad intentions.
Leaders often want unity, strong culture, or smooth implementation. Many simply replicate the structures they experienced earlier in their careers. Over time, participation becomes confused with authenticity.
The consequences are predictable. Innovation slows without dissent. Leaders make decisions based on incomplete information. Teachers burn out from masking discomfort. Equity suffers because those who feel least secure feel the greatest pressure to perform.
As Sturgill (2025) notes, when education becomes performative, the focus shifts from understanding to appearance. And this risk is amplified in the age of artificial intelligence.
Authenticity cannot thrive in environments where honesty feels risky.
Creating the conditions for real participation
Authenticity requires courage, trust, and professional respect. These conditions look different in high-trust and low-trust schools. The following moves are not quick fixes but starting points for shifting culture from performance to honesty.
1. Build conditions for honest dialogue
Authentic collaboration begins with leaders who welcome disagreement. But in schools where distrust has taken root, candor does not appear simply because a leader invites it.
Staff watch carefully for consistency. Early attempts at honesty may be cautious, partial, or indirect. Leaders must demonstrate—over time—through their reactions, not just their words, that dissent is genuinely safe.
2. Clarify purpose and reduce performative tasks
Some meetings create the illusion of collaboration while requiring none. Camera-on expectations during information—only sessions are a prime example. Respecting educators’ time signals trust and professionalism.
3. Use optionality with guardrails
Adults should not feel pressured to share personal details or display enthusiasm for group comfort. But optionality does not mean disengagement.
Optionality removes unnecessary social pressure while preserving expectations for intellectual engagement. In low-trust cultures, pair optional participation with structured entry points—anonymous input, think-time or low-stakes written reflection—to keep engagement high without forcing personal disclosure.
4. Create conditions where collaboration emerges naturally
Agreeableness is not a weakness when grounded in trust. Peterson (2025) notes that agreeable teams often communicate openly and adapt well, but only when they feel valued rather than pressured.
Conclusion: From staged participation to authentic engagement
When leaders design with intentionality, performances fade. What remains is what schools need most—honesty, humanity, meaningful dialogue, and shared purpose.
When those conditions exist, the pressure to perform fades and what remains is honest interaction, clearer purpose and real professional engagement, not polished compliance.
References
- Peterson, R. S. (2023). Should you fake laugh at your boss’s jokes? [Video]. TEDxLondonBusinessSchool.
- Peterson, R. S. (2025, November 19). A lot of people still assume agreeableness is a weakness at work… [LinkedIn post]. LinkedIn.
- Sturgill, A. (2025, February 21). When education becomes performative, learning suffers. Center for Engaged Learning.
