I have read a number of blogs recently, some by significant educational heavyweights, that equate relational behaviour management to ‘children only behaving for teachers that they like.’ This, overly simplistic and inaccurate view of relational behaviour management exemplifies a total misunderstanding of the deep and hard work that goes into relational behaviour management. In this blog I explore some of the research and writing out there that shows why this is the only way to create meaningful relationships and allow student agency in their behavioural choices, creating long-term understanding and commitment to empathy and trust.
In many schools, behaviour management is often equated with being kind, pleasant, or superficially positive. But relational behaviour management (RBM) is much more demanding, and more powerful. It centres on trust, connection, agency, and belonging—not simply on children doing what adults want because they like them. Drawing on relational inclusion theory (as articulated by Benedict & Braven) alongside the trauma-informed, relationship-focused practice of Dr Lisa Cherry, we can see that RBM is not about being “nice” in a vacuous way, but forging deep human relationships that enable children to feel safe, valued, and empowered.
Relational Behaviour Management: Deeper Than Niceness
At its core, RBM recognises that behaviour flows from internal states of safety, relational trust, and the sense that one belongs. It is not enough for children to like their teachers; what matters more is whether they believe the adults care, will listen, will be consistent, will repair when trust is broken—all essential for real relational safety.
In fact, some of the most beloved teachers that I can remember were not the nicest, they were often the strictest, but they were fair, and they cared for the children in their care.
Benedict & Braven argue that relational inclusion demands we shift away from compliance via coercion or reward, toward relationships built on respect, trust, and understanding.
Dr Lisa Cherry’s work complements this by emphasising how trauma, attachment, and adversity affect behaviour, and how relationship-focused practice can repair some of the relational ruptures children may have experienced. Cherry insists that safe, trusting relationships are foundational; only when children feel truly safe—emotionally as well as physically—can teaching and behavioural expectations be internalised rather than forced.
Beyond “Likeability”: Agency, Voice, Mattering
A common misconception is that relational behaviour management means children behave only for teachers they like. While liking helps, RBM pushes further: it’s about giving children agency, allowing their voices to be heard, and ensuring they feel that they matter in the educational community. It’s about shifting power in small but significant ways.
Dr Cherry’s research (both her academic work and her books) centres around the idea of belonging, and one of her research questions is: How do care-experienced adults who were also excluded from school make sense of belonging? The findings from her work suggest that exclusion from having voice or agency in school contributes deeply to feelings of alienation. When children are given opportunities to contribute, make choices, and shape their environment, they are more likely to internalise expectations and behave because they see themselves as part of the community—not because of external rewards or superficial fondness.
Trust, Safety, & Repair
Relational behaviour management relies heavily on the idea of relational repair. People will inevitably fall short: commitments forgotten, boundaries crossed, mistakes made. What distinguishes relational approaches is how those ruptures are handled.
Cherry emphasises that safety is not a “one-off checkbox” but a continual process: how do leaders, teachers, staff act with integrity? How do they model vulnerability? How do they repair harm when it’s caused—by them or others?These are key components of behaviour management that goes beyond niceness: it means embracing the messiness of human relationships, being consistent, predictable, trustworthy.
The common misconception is that relational behaviour management lacks consequences, but the stakes are much higher in this environment. When belonging, mattering and trust are internalised, our own internal regulators cause deep feelings of unease and guilt when we step outside the boundaries defined by love and empathy. There is no worse feeling than upsetting someone for which you have a mutual relationship based on love, so we don’t do it and, when we do, we are quick to apologise, fix and mend.
Scholarly Support & Evidence
Some of the broader research aligns closely with both Benedict/Braven’s relational inclusion framework and Cherry’s trauma-informed relational practice:
• Studies of teacher-child relationships over decades show that closeness, low conflict, and emotional support predict better academic, social, and emotional outcomes.
• Evidence around children’s agency shows that when students experience real choice and involvement in decisions, engagement and prosocial behaviour improve—behaviour becomes internalised rather than enforced.
• Trauma-informed practice research shows that children who have experienced adversity or care exclusion often respond poorly to purely punitive or compliance-based systems, but improve under relational approaches that emphasise belonging, voice, regulation, and relational repair.
Implications for Practice
What does all this mean for teachers, school leaders, and educational policy?
- Create relational safety:
- Prioritise emotional safety: listen, empathise, be predictable.
- Train staff in understanding trauma, attachment, regulation—not just behaviour policies. Cherry’s work demonstrates the importance of understanding how past trauma shapes behaviour.
- Give children voice and agency:
- Involve students in setting classroom norms.
- Offer meaningful choices.
- Allow students to contribute to policy or school culture. When young people see their ideas reflected in school practices, that signals that they matter.
- Consistent, relational repair:
- When things go wrong, repair the relationship, not simply impose sanctions.
- Leaders must model this: show humility, admit mistakes, make space for vulnerability.
- Whole-school culture
- Behaviour policy, pastoral care, leadership, staff training should all align around relational values. Cherry’s “Weaving a Web of Belonging” (2025) argues that belonging should be integral across spaces, places, faces in a school environment.
Conclusion
Relational behaviour management is far more than being “nice.” It is about forging deep connection, fostering trust, offering agency, ensuring children feel like they matter—and repairing when hurts happen. Teachers and schools that orient their behaviour management around these relational and trauma-informed principles find behaviour that is more stable, more internalised, and more humane. It is not about charismatic teachers or superficial popularity, but about creating systems, practices, and interactions that truly nurture belonging, voice, and trust.
References
• Cherry, L. (2021). Conversations That Make a Difference for Children and Young People: Relationship-Focused Practice from the Frontline. Routledge.
• Cherry, L. (2022). The Brightness of Stars: Stories from Care Experienced Adults to Inspire Change (3rd ed.).
• Cherry, L. (2025). Weaving a Web of Belonging: Developing a Trauma-Informed Culture for All Children. Routledge.
• Benedict, A., & Braven, A. Educating Everyone: An Introduction to Relational Inclusion in Schools. (for relational inclusion framework)
The Belonging Collective 