It's so interesting to read this, especially right now. Because I want things to be ordered and appropriate, everyone (including me) seems to think that I want to control people. But I've discovered I really don't, and it's causing me some problems in teaching high school.
I really expect other people to police themselves and keep themselves under control, doing the right thing at the right time. I'll remind them if necessary, but after that I'm reluctant to take harsher measures. I want to give them every opportunity to do what's appropriate on their own initiative. When they continuously neglect or refuse to do this, it makes me angry because they're disturbing and disrupting the ordered flow of the classroom.
It shouldn't make me angry, I know. The fact that this is my initial reaction aggravates me all the more.
I want to discuss this more; I'm very curious to find out more about my own reactions and reasons for them so that I can manage my classroom better. My students are coming in now and I have to go, though. I'll check back later.
I hope you don't mind, Faith, but I'm going to spin your post as negatively as I can in order to make my point glaringly obvious. It's not about you, of course. I'm just using your post as a springboard to set up a hypothetical classroom environment--a very negative one. I want to create a very obvious bad example of ineffectual communications in a hypothetical classroom and then contrast it to a subsequent good example of clear communications.
I'm going to spin the classroom situation as a form of passive-aggressive behavior on the part of the teacher. Usually passive-aggressive behavior is described as directed at undermining authority. But in a broader sense it can be any aggression towards others expressed indirectly or passively. So in this case the teacher is exhibiting passive-aggressive behavior toward the children.
Thus, here is a high level of aggressiveness on the part of the teacher (showing a high degree of desired intervention in the children's affairs):
The teacher's train of thought: "The children need to show a high degree of order, appropriateness, and control in my classroom. Even their timing should be perfect--the right thing at the right time. They can be 'unique individuals' somewhere else, away from my classroom. But when they're here in my classroom, I really do expect them to meet my personal expectations in full."
Here is the high degree of passiveness in the teacher's communications:
The teacher's train of thought: "I have very high expectations of them, but I refuse to exert control over other people. The initiative should come from them. They should police
themselves and keep
themselves under control. So I'll just give them occasional reminders and otherwise just wait for them to figure out and/or demonstrate on their own what I want from them. Of course their poor behavior causes me to be angry all the time, but they can just suffer with that until they finally figure out on their own what I need from them."
To sum up:
In this case, the aggressive act is the teacher's desire to impose on the children a very high degree of compliance and obedience. The children are effectively hijacked by the teacher's short-term need for obedience. The children's needs and desires really aren't anywhere in the picture; the children are only evaluated by one yardstick--whether they do or don't behave according to the teacher's expectations. The passivity, in turn, shows up in the teacher's desire to avoid any appearance of obvious control; so she gives the children minimal guidance and mainly just wishes they would improve on their own--and radiates anger when they don't.
This kind of passive-aggressive behavior sets up an atmosphere of failure for the classroom. The children know from the teacher's anger that they are failing her, but she isn't providing them the kind of clear guidance and structure they would need in order to even begin to meet her high expectations of order and control.
(Again, that's a really negative spin. It's a worst-case scenario, and not any reflection on your post, Faith. I don't pretend for a second to know the specifics of your situation from a couple sentences in your short post.)
In contrast, for the good example of clear communications, I'll use an environment I'm more familiar with--say, a foreman in charge of a shift of blue-collar factory workers.
Here is a low level of aggressiveness/intervention:
The foreman's train of thought:
"I've just arrived here and I've been assigned this shift of workers, and frankly it's a pretty rough crowd. It looks like barely controlled chaos around here. But they've been working here a while without getting fired, so they must know what they're doing. I'll work with that idea in mind, and not worry so much about the fact that they're rough around the edges.
"Initially I'll concentrate on hammering home a few of the most important work guidelines so that there's no question that at least a minimum of discipline is observed. It's best to stick to basics at first--they'll need time to tune in and get used to taking orders from me. In the meantime I can look them over, check out their strengths and weaknesses, and fine-tune some appropriate punishments and rewards to get the most out of them over the longer-term.
"I'm going to keep in mind that I can't turn them into clones of me. They come with their own strengths and weaknesses, and I have to work with that. Sometimes it means that projects are going to be done half-assed by my standards, and there won't be anything I can do about it right away; sometimes I'll have to settle for "good enough." On the other hand, some of these guys are going to have strengths and knowledge that I don't have, and I'll try to keep an eye out for those and find a good use for them."
Here is a low level of passivity (that is, a high level of interaction):
The foreman's train of thought:
"There is a lot of diversity in the workers here. That means I probably want to keep my rules and guidelines simple and clear, at least initially, so that everyone gets the message. I'll hammer the messages home with lots of repetition until I'm quite sure that everyone is clear on exactly what I want from them. Otherwise, the workers tend to garble what I tell them. Everyone has their own wavelength, and it takes a while before we all start really tuning each other in.
"If there are any discipline problems here, that's fine--I don't mind making an example of one or two and taking disciplinary action if absolutely necessary. My initial rules will be pretty basic and bottom-line, so no one should have a need to challenge them except out of sheer bad blood--in which case we need to get that straightened out. They need to know who's in charge.
"On the other hand, I don't want to crush them and take away their spirit or initiative. I can't be arbitrary about exercising authority, and I can't assume they operate by the same rules that I've learned. They're only accountable for whatever I've communicated clearly to them. Beyond that, I'll try to give them a break on discipline problems the first time out and only subsequently increase penalties in a gradual and predictable fashion. I need to build trust and loyalty, and the best way I can do that is to be crystal clear about what I expect from them and then be fair, open, and predictable in enforcing it.
"Over the longer-term, once they're used to taking orders from me, I'll be needing them to work independently and show initiative. So as soon as we're over the initial adjustment, I'll want to lighten up on the oversight and shift the incentives increasingly from punishments to rewards. As I get more confidence in the team and confirm that I can trust them to work without me looking over their shoulder, I'll pull aside a couple of the senior workers and try giving them some extra responsibility. I'll give them independent projects, have them report to me daily to show me their progress, and I'll monitor whether they're maintaining the pace and quality I need. If all goes well, I'll give them more independence, training and authority until they can cover for me when I have to be out or take vacation."
To sum up:
The foreman is taking over a working shift. If there are no immediate crises to be addressed, then the foreman doesn't intend much initial intervention in the way things currently operate (low aggressiveness). He keeps his initial expectations and goals low and mainly focuses on securing his authority and monitoring minimum levels of discipline. Over time, as he and the workers interact more closely, he can fine-tune selectively and start shaping the team according to his needs.
OTOH, the foreman isn't passive in his interactions with the workers. The initial stage may in fact require a lot of interaction and repetitious communication with the workers. Later stages may see him granting greater independence to most of the workers while focusing on training a couple promising people for team leadership positions. So it's never really a question of being a control freak (or avoiding being a control freak). Instead, it's about setting reasonable goals and then interacting to whatever degree is appropriate to achieve the goals. Priorities will change over time, and so the level of oversight or independence will change as well.
So, to sum up:
Bad example: High aggressiveness and high passivity = a high need to intervene and control the behavior of others, coupled with poor communication and low guidance about what behaviors are actually expected.
Good example: Low aggressiveness and low passivity = low initial need to intervene and control the behavior of others, coupled with good communication and lots of interaction aimed at shaping a team environment over the long-term.
I see two issues emerging in this discussion.
1. The need to state expectations clearly so that both parties have the information they need to act.
2. How to implement the consequences of not meeting those expectations.
It can be easier to implement consequences if they are designed as part of a pre-planned system. The difficulty can arise when the leader has to improvise during real-time power struggles with subordinates. Once a certain level of pressure is introduced, it is wise to maintain it consistently. This is one thing that held me back from calling out students who were late (or whatever) and such things. Once you start that, it is important to do it every time, and the more passive person will be required to deflect energy and focus that could have been spent elsewhere. I find in leadership you must choose your battles, and choose the ones you can maintain in the moment and every time it comes up.
I'll stop here and deal with the issue of implementing consequences and handling discipline in a separate post tomorrow. It's a legitimate and important concern with some interesting applications.