There are two people at my place of employment who thrive on creating drama. They constantly try and dump their responsibilities off on everyone else, they whine to the director on a daily basis, and make snide remarks trying to belittle everyone every chance they get. Their motto seems to be "Make everyone else look bad so no one looks too closely at us".
I try to avoid them as much as possible, as they can't cause trouble if they aren't around, but that is very difficult. I have tried to be respectful when I respond--like today when one made a snippy comment about me leaving the cover off the laminating machine. I simply responded that I could not put the cover on while it was hot, and that while it was cooling down I was called to another building to attend an IEP meeting-- that I had just returned and was on my way to cover it, and then thanked her for doing it for me and walked away. Since I try not to take the bait and fight with her, she usually doesn't know what to say and that's the end--until the next time she tries to push my buttons.
I also attempt to use nonviolent communication when dealing with these women by reminding myself to be compassionate. One is about to become a mother for the first time and is really not all that comfortable around babies, so I remind myself that she is scared and try and cut her some slack. The other is fairly new to our center, having just completed her associate's degree last year and will be alone in the classroom for two months while the other is on maternity leave. I remind myself that she is inexperienced and nervous and try to make allowances for that.
My co-teacher and I have developed a mantra from when they try to suck us into their chaos--"Not my circus, not my monkeys".
Please note that I said I try--I do not always succeed. I am human and I react sometimes without thinking--they do manage to get to me from time to time.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Communication Profile
I am supposed to discuss how I view myself as a communicator differs from how others see me as a communicator. Honestly, there really wasn't much of a difference between the two. The only area in which the scores were different were in the anxiety inventory. I scored myself as moderately anxious, while others scored my anxiety about speaking as low. So, I guess the only surprise is that I appear much more self-confident and relaxed when speaking to others than I actually feel.
I have a short temper at times and I have worked very hard at maintaining control when communicating with others. It has been a difficult journey, but--judging from the scores I received, I can say that I am--at least to some extent--successful at doing so. I do need to vent, and there are a few trusted people that I can talk to about how I am feeling about certain people or situations, which helps me to remain calm and focused when I need to. Does this mean I am being dishonest? Yes--to some degree I guess I am. But I think that in order to effectively communicate sometimes you need to hide the fact that you think someone is a raving idiot and find a constructive way to approach the situation.
Just this week, a parent asked me a question about a former student now in another classroom. I gave her the best answer I could based on my experience with this child--which was not the answer she wanted. Her child has behavioral issues, and she was looking to blame the fact that he was not allowed to attend a field trip on another child rather than her own, which was NOT the case. I found out later that day that she posted a very long, very offensive rant about me and my "lukewarm" response. My initial reaction was to call her out and let her have it. However, I realized that getting into a public battle with her via social media was not only counterproductive, it was highly unprofessional. So, I chose to ignore the post completely, other than to bring it to the attention of my boss, so she would be aware of the situation should she hear about it from someone else. When she realized that I was not going to take the bait (and several other people came to my defense by way of comments to her post), she removed the post completely. Was I honest with this person? Yes, to her initial question, but no, in that I didn't get into a confrontation about her post. I did not tell her what I think of her. Did I take the high road and ignore it? Yes. Was I effective in communicating with her? I believe I was. My lack of response communicated to her that I was not going to sink to a public forum battle, and she backed down. I have learned (sometimes the hard way) that just because a thought appears in my head does not mean I have to share it.
I have a short temper at times and I have worked very hard at maintaining control when communicating with others. It has been a difficult journey, but--judging from the scores I received, I can say that I am--at least to some extent--successful at doing so. I do need to vent, and there are a few trusted people that I can talk to about how I am feeling about certain people or situations, which helps me to remain calm and focused when I need to. Does this mean I am being dishonest? Yes--to some degree I guess I am. But I think that in order to effectively communicate sometimes you need to hide the fact that you think someone is a raving idiot and find a constructive way to approach the situation.
Just this week, a parent asked me a question about a former student now in another classroom. I gave her the best answer I could based on my experience with this child--which was not the answer she wanted. Her child has behavioral issues, and she was looking to blame the fact that he was not allowed to attend a field trip on another child rather than her own, which was NOT the case. I found out later that day that she posted a very long, very offensive rant about me and my "lukewarm" response. My initial reaction was to call her out and let her have it. However, I realized that getting into a public battle with her via social media was not only counterproductive, it was highly unprofessional. So, I chose to ignore the post completely, other than to bring it to the attention of my boss, so she would be aware of the situation should she hear about it from someone else. When she realized that I was not going to take the bait (and several other people came to my defense by way of comments to her post), she removed the post completely. Was I honest with this person? Yes, to her initial question, but no, in that I didn't get into a confrontation about her post. I did not tell her what I think of her. Did I take the high road and ignore it? Yes. Was I effective in communicating with her? I believe I was. My lack of response communicated to her that I was not going to sink to a public forum battle, and she backed down. I have learned (sometimes the hard way) that just because a thought appears in my head does not mean I have to share it.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Communication Differences
This week I am to consider the ways in which I communicate with different groups and if I change the way I communicate from one group to the next. I have to say I do, but not for the reasons one might immediately assume. With my family, at least my immediate family (siblings, parents, offspring, spouse) it's pretty much anything goes. No one has any filters--everyone says what's on their mind, no holds barred--no subject is off limits! Politics, religion, love lives, finances--we all pretty much throw in our two cents. My son even felt comfortable enough bringing his boyfriend home to a family party last summer to meet everyone, even though he hadn't officially "come out" to everyone yet. He figured that was as good a way as any!
The same holds true for my closest friends. We pretty much dive into each other's lives--with little concern for "off-limits" or worrying about how we are coming across.
For people outside this total-comfort zone, I tend to be a bit more restrained. I avoid topics which might be offensive to others, I keep my language and body language more formal. I try to avoid doing or saying anything which might be misunderstood or inadvertently offensive--at least until I get to know them better and feel more comfortable around them. Then I can let my guard down a bit.
At work I communicate with the parents and family members in a professional tone. I try to avoid making assumptions about family customs and cultures. I try to show respect for everyone and attempt to learn as much as possible about their lives (as it pertains to the well-being of the child). As I am sure every teacher experiences, there are some families that you will "click" with and become more comfortable and less formal, and others that will remain a formal relationship throughout the school year. With the students, I am informal from the start--I am polite and respectful, but also silly and relaxed, as they are kids and I want them to be comfortable around me. Just today, I overheard two of the school-aged students having a disagreement. HW (age 12) was insisting to SG (age 7) that when two people get married, the lady changes her name and the kids have the same name as the father. And if the mother get remarried she changes her name to the new husbands and so do the kids--always! SG was having a hard time making HW understand that in her culture it isn't done that way. So I stepped in and explained that in SG's culture, the wife does not take the husband's last name when they get married, and that the children take the father's first name as their last name. I then asked SG if I had explained it correctly, and she smiled and said I did. Whenever I am dealing with a situation that I have little or no personal experience with, I like to double check and make sure I understand correctly.
As for communicating with people from different cultures differently, I really don't--at least I try not to. I try to be polite and respectful to everyone I communicate with. If I know about something that may be offensive (topic, gesture, word, etc.) I do my best to avoid it. Now, I am not perfect by any means and I make mistakes and offend people--it happens. Sometimes I do or say the wrong thing. I try to learn when that happens so as to avoid it happening again.
The same holds true for my closest friends. We pretty much dive into each other's lives--with little concern for "off-limits" or worrying about how we are coming across.
For people outside this total-comfort zone, I tend to be a bit more restrained. I avoid topics which might be offensive to others, I keep my language and body language more formal. I try to avoid doing or saying anything which might be misunderstood or inadvertently offensive--at least until I get to know them better and feel more comfortable around them. Then I can let my guard down a bit.
At work I communicate with the parents and family members in a professional tone. I try to avoid making assumptions about family customs and cultures. I try to show respect for everyone and attempt to learn as much as possible about their lives (as it pertains to the well-being of the child). As I am sure every teacher experiences, there are some families that you will "click" with and become more comfortable and less formal, and others that will remain a formal relationship throughout the school year. With the students, I am informal from the start--I am polite and respectful, but also silly and relaxed, as they are kids and I want them to be comfortable around me. Just today, I overheard two of the school-aged students having a disagreement. HW (age 12) was insisting to SG (age 7) that when two people get married, the lady changes her name and the kids have the same name as the father. And if the mother get remarried she changes her name to the new husbands and so do the kids--always! SG was having a hard time making HW understand that in her culture it isn't done that way. So I stepped in and explained that in SG's culture, the wife does not take the husband's last name when they get married, and that the children take the father's first name as their last name. I then asked SG if I had explained it correctly, and she smiled and said I did. Whenever I am dealing with a situation that I have little or no personal experience with, I like to double check and make sure I understand correctly.
As for communicating with people from different cultures differently, I really don't--at least I try not to. I try to be polite and respectful to everyone I communicate with. If I know about something that may be offensive (topic, gesture, word, etc.) I do my best to avoid it. Now, I am not perfect by any means and I make mistakes and offend people--it happens. Sometimes I do or say the wrong thing. I try to learn when that happens so as to avoid it happening again.
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Non-verbal communication
For this week's assignment, I was to watch a television show that I am unfamiliar with--with the volume off--and observe the non-verbal communication.
I chose an episode of The Goldbergs (it was a random on-demand choice, as I rarely watch television). The opening scene featured a teenaged boy and a younger boy--the younger one was getting "beat up" by the older one--body slams, wrestling, etc.--in a living room. I took these actions to mean that they were brothers.
The show continued with the older boy and 3 other boys about the same age--watching TV, hanging out and playing some sort of game in a Wawa parking lot. Judging from the facial expressions, high-5's, etc. I would take them to be a group of friends. A second group of boys join them, and from the facial expressions I assumed that this group was not friendly with the first group (frowning, glaring). The older brother stood face-to-face with one boy from the other group--facial expressions indicating tension between the two groups (intense glaring, words spoken with a look of anger on each face). Then the boy from the other group shoved an ice cream cone in the older brother's face and the brother stalked off.
The older brother is shown next speaking with an older man. Since it is taking place in a home, I assume this is the grandfather.
The show cuts to a young woman sitting on a couch watching TV (Ronald Reagan is on the screen) with a man in his late 30's/early 40's, and they are having a discussion. The woman seems to be more emotionally involved, as she is gesturing with her hands and arms. I was unsure at first if this was the wife of a daughter, but then it showed another woman ironing next to the couch, so I figured it was the daughter on the couch and the mother ironing. The daughter is clearly trying to convince her parents of something that she feels is important.
The show moves on to the two brothers, and it appears that the younger one is helping the older one train physically.
The next scene shows the daughter on a stage (most likely at her high school) about to take part in a debate. Her parents come onto the stage and take over. The daughter is clearly embarrassed (hiding her face, rolling her eyes). The mother is wearing a "Just say NO" t-shirt. The mother's shirt, combined with a Rick Springfield poster on the wall, the younger brother's Knight Rider t-shirt, and the extreme feathering of the mother's hair made me assume this show takes place in the early to mid 80's. The mother and the principal/teacher are next seen searching lockers--I assume for drugs given the mother's shirt.
The show winds up with the family members making peace with each other (smiling, hugging). I decided that the plot of the show followed two storylines: the older brother enlisting the younger brother's help to train to defend himself against a rival group, and the daughter and her parents on opposing sides of a Presidential election. The older brother stood up to the rival group, but scared them off by acting crazy and not by fighting them. And, much to the daughter's disappointment, Reagan won the election (sorry for the spoiler!!!)
I re-watched the show with the volume turned up, and found that, for the most part, I had interpreted the show correctly. I correctly guessed each relationship. The older brother did enlist his younger brother's help, but to train for the television show American Gladiator. They did show the brother watching that, but I didn't recognize it. The daughter was trying to convince her parents to vote for Walter Mondale, but the mother went overboard in supporting Nancy Reagan and the Just say NO! campaign. It turned out that the mother was trying to impress the daughter by becoming politically active.
Overall, the show was a typical sit-com. Conflict, resolution, happy ending all accomplished in under 30 minutes. This "formula" helped to some degree in determining relationships, storyline, etc., but non-verbal communication effectively told much of the story without the dialogue. I don't know if being familiar with the show honestly could have lent any more insight.
The biggest a-ha moment for me was not in the communication between the characters, but instead in how the choice of costumes and props were used to set the show some 30 years ago: feathered hair, huge earrings, Rick Springfield, Knight Rider, VHS tapes, Just say NO, a cheeseburger phone--all relics of my teenage years--all successfully indicating that the show took place decades ago.
I chose an episode of The Goldbergs (it was a random on-demand choice, as I rarely watch television). The opening scene featured a teenaged boy and a younger boy--the younger one was getting "beat up" by the older one--body slams, wrestling, etc.--in a living room. I took these actions to mean that they were brothers.
The show continued with the older boy and 3 other boys about the same age--watching TV, hanging out and playing some sort of game in a Wawa parking lot. Judging from the facial expressions, high-5's, etc. I would take them to be a group of friends. A second group of boys join them, and from the facial expressions I assumed that this group was not friendly with the first group (frowning, glaring). The older brother stood face-to-face with one boy from the other group--facial expressions indicating tension between the two groups (intense glaring, words spoken with a look of anger on each face). Then the boy from the other group shoved an ice cream cone in the older brother's face and the brother stalked off.
The older brother is shown next speaking with an older man. Since it is taking place in a home, I assume this is the grandfather.
The show cuts to a young woman sitting on a couch watching TV (Ronald Reagan is on the screen) with a man in his late 30's/early 40's, and they are having a discussion. The woman seems to be more emotionally involved, as she is gesturing with her hands and arms. I was unsure at first if this was the wife of a daughter, but then it showed another woman ironing next to the couch, so I figured it was the daughter on the couch and the mother ironing. The daughter is clearly trying to convince her parents of something that she feels is important.
The show moves on to the two brothers, and it appears that the younger one is helping the older one train physically.
The next scene shows the daughter on a stage (most likely at her high school) about to take part in a debate. Her parents come onto the stage and take over. The daughter is clearly embarrassed (hiding her face, rolling her eyes). The mother is wearing a "Just say NO" t-shirt. The mother's shirt, combined with a Rick Springfield poster on the wall, the younger brother's Knight Rider t-shirt, and the extreme feathering of the mother's hair made me assume this show takes place in the early to mid 80's. The mother and the principal/teacher are next seen searching lockers--I assume for drugs given the mother's shirt.
The show winds up with the family members making peace with each other (smiling, hugging). I decided that the plot of the show followed two storylines: the older brother enlisting the younger brother's help to train to defend himself against a rival group, and the daughter and her parents on opposing sides of a Presidential election. The older brother stood up to the rival group, but scared them off by acting crazy and not by fighting them. And, much to the daughter's disappointment, Reagan won the election (sorry for the spoiler!!!)
I re-watched the show with the volume turned up, and found that, for the most part, I had interpreted the show correctly. I correctly guessed each relationship. The older brother did enlist his younger brother's help, but to train for the television show American Gladiator. They did show the brother watching that, but I didn't recognize it. The daughter was trying to convince her parents to vote for Walter Mondale, but the mother went overboard in supporting Nancy Reagan and the Just say NO! campaign. It turned out that the mother was trying to impress the daughter by becoming politically active.
Overall, the show was a typical sit-com. Conflict, resolution, happy ending all accomplished in under 30 minutes. This "formula" helped to some degree in determining relationships, storyline, etc., but non-verbal communication effectively told much of the story without the dialogue. I don't know if being familiar with the show honestly could have lent any more insight.
The biggest a-ha moment for me was not in the communication between the characters, but instead in how the choice of costumes and props were used to set the show some 30 years ago: feathered hair, huge earrings, Rick Springfield, Knight Rider, VHS tapes, Just say NO, a cheeseburger phone--all relics of my teenage years--all successfully indicating that the show took place decades ago.
Saturday, July 4, 2015
Effective Communication
As I am attempting to get back into the routine of taking classes, I am asked to consider someone who demonstrates competent communication skills.
My first thought was our President. I remember---years ago----listening to the Democratic Convention on television while working on something at my desk. They introduced then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama to give the keynote address. As he spoke, I had to stop what I was doing and give him my full attention. The way in which he spoke was captivating--inspiring. I remember calling my mother and asking her if she was watching. Until that day, I had never even heard of this man. I clearly remember telling my mother that I believed he would one day be President.
He spoke from his heart. He shared personal experiences and spoke of common desires. He reached out to the audience and connected with them all--young, old, black, white, rich, poor--it didn't matter. He believed in what he was saying. Now, 11 years later, he still holds true to the things he said. That, to me, is what makes an effective communicator. Be honest. Be sincere. Be passionate. Be true.
My first thought was our President. I remember---years ago----listening to the Democratic Convention on television while working on something at my desk. They introduced then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama to give the keynote address. As he spoke, I had to stop what I was doing and give him my full attention. The way in which he spoke was captivating--inspiring. I remember calling my mother and asking her if she was watching. Until that day, I had never even heard of this man. I clearly remember telling my mother that I believed he would one day be President.
He spoke from his heart. He shared personal experiences and spoke of common desires. He reached out to the audience and connected with them all--young, old, black, white, rich, poor--it didn't matter. He believed in what he was saying. Now, 11 years later, he still holds true to the things he said. That, to me, is what makes an effective communicator. Be honest. Be sincere. Be passionate. Be true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)