By Becky Wright, Executive Director, Unions 21 | 6 min
“For most of NAHT's history, there was an ongoing internal argument about whether the organisation was a trade union or a professional association.”
That question no longer arises. NAHT is now, in the words of a long-serving member of staff, “a fully formed independent trade union”, affiliated to the TUC, with clear strategic ambitions rooted in that identity.
But that clarity didn't come easily or quickly. And the story of how NAHT got there is one of the most honest accounts we've heard of what culture change in a union actually involves.
You have to decide what you are
For a long time, there was what one person described as an anxiety about proclaiming NAHT as a trade union. There was comfort in the gravitas of being a professional association – "the voice of the profession" – and that identity seeped throughout the organisation: who sat on the executive, who got hired, how decisions got made.
The turning point came when the organisation stopped hedging. As one person put it: "Nailing your colours to the mast and having a sense of what you're actually trying to achieve by saying 'we are a trade union’."
That identity shift was tied directly to a commitment to organising – backed with real resources, and grounded in the everyday experience of members. Without deciding what you're trying to achieve, no strategy sticks.
A powerful example was the No Excuse for Abuse campaign, which originated in a local branch meeting but resonated nationally. It addressed a professional issue – the abuse of school staff – through a trade union lens of campaigning and organising. It affected every category of membership. And it sent a clear signal that NAHT's response to problems had fundamentally changed: not just “we're very professional about this”, but “we're going to campaign on it”.
Change the structures – not just the culture
Culture doesn't shift through away days and consultants. NAHT learned that the hard way. Earlier attempts at change failed because the people brought in didn't speak the language of trade unions – they arrived with models designed for manufacturing or banking, ran exercises at staff events, and disappeared without follow-up.
What worked was structural change that matched the stated commitment.
New regional structures were introduced to enable local engagement and democracy. A revised conference delegation process ensured motions reflected the collective membership voice rather than individual interests. A flatter senior leadership structure replaced excessive bureaucracy, with each directorate developing strategic plans that gave the organisation clarity without letting process run ahead of purpose.
Hiring was part of it too. When NAHT was predominantly a professional association, most staff in representative roles were former head teachers – often people who had retired from school leadership and, in one person's words, saw union work as “a pipeline to retirement”. That embedded professional association habits: people used to being the primary voice in their workplace, making decisions alone.
Bringing in staff with trade union backgrounds didn't just add skills that hadn't previously existed, it also clarified the boundary between staff and lay roles. To support this shift, NAHT developed a comprehensive applicant pack that gave candidates an honest picture of the organisation. The feedback from both successful and unsuccessful applicants has been positive: fewer surprises, better fit.
Anchor change in shared values and mean them
Culture also shifted through the development of four core values, arrived at through internal discussion:
People First
Be Bold
Go Further
In It Together
These underpin three strategic targets: Growth (building union numbers for power and influence), Community (connecting members whose jobs are often isolating), and Voice (projecting the voice of school leaders through press and publicity).
The value of this clarity is that every person in the organisation – including those in so-called backroom roles – can see how their work connects to the bigger picture. It also enabled a move towards a genuinely high-trust working environment: a focus on output over hours, flexibility around caring responsibilities, and trust that people will get on with the work. Counterintuitively, one person noted that the quality of conversations across the organisation is now broadly better than when everyone was in the same office.
Equity has been central to this shift. When one long-serving member of staff joined, the national executive was, in their words, “a boys' club” – dominated by men, despite NAHT's membership being stronger in primary schools where there are more female head teachers. Now, women make up more than half of the executive, with 15% BAME representation and good LGBT representation. The regional secretaries group is roughly 50/50. A women's network has been established, and NAHT now attends TUC equalities conferences and submits motions. As one staff member put it, there has been “a reduction in the elitism and traditionalism side of a professional culture” with a newer, more diverse activist base challenging older norms from within.
Don't underestimate the human side of change
The change process at NAHT has not been smooth or linear. There were early adopters – people who felt the shift was long overdue – and genuine sceptics among longer-serving staff who had seen previous initiatives come and go. The difference this time wasn't just that the intentions were stated clearly; it was that the work was treated as never finished.
Not everyone could make the journey. And the organisation came to accept that. As one senior staff member put it: “Behind every situation there is a person, and friends and family who rely on them. Treat them with respect – but stand your ground.”
That combination of care and conviction is harder than it sounds. But it's also, in our view, what distinguishes a genuine culture change effort from a managed communications exercise.
What can other unions take from this?
For any union navigating a similar dual identity, NAHT's experience suggests this is a false dichotomy. Both sets of activities can and should coexist. But you cannot skip the step of deciding what you're actually trying to achieve by calling yourself a trade union, and then not resourcing it.
As one person put it: “You have to both declare what you are and build all the supporting mechanisms to get there.”
Culture change takes time, persistence and a willingness to keep coming back to it. There's no shortcut. But there is a clear place to start: deciding, without hedging, what kind of organisation you want to be.
This case study is part of Unions 21's ongoing work exploring how unions are changing from the inside. If your union is navigating a similar shift, we'd love to hear from you.
