I think you highlight an interesting phenomenon here, cheesy. I remember being struck by how some teachers I worked with interpreted the SMT's role as having to do whatever the teacher wanted them to do. If they sent a pupil to the AHT wanting them suspended, then they judged that AHT was "weak" and “unsupportive” if they didn’t suspend, despite the myriad of sensible reasons the AHT might have for not doing so (usually, the pupil didn’t actually deserve it). In other words, SMT's role was not to manage the school the way they deemed best - for which they are paid and for which they are held highly accountable - but was to do the bidding of the staff. They extended the same view downwards too: that is, the pupil's role was to do exactly was they were told, without question. A pupil had to do the teacher's bidding: if they didn’t, they were "recalcitrant". And if they were questioned by parents, those parents were "troublemakers" and, no doubt, “feral”. Therefore, those teachers saw themselves at the centre of the universe, with everyone orbiting them, and any deviation of that being seen as an affront to the natural order. I wouldn't be surprised if that kind of teacher is now feeling threatened and insecure: it's absolutely understandable, if regrettable. Most teachers I worked with, though, were of course aware that relationships in a social organisation like a school are complex, with many competing needs and demands that actually do have to be negotiated.