Confidentiality, Professionalism and other HR Anomalies

Confidentiality, Professionalism and other

HR Anomalies…

“There are no facts, only interpretations.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

1 Hallie Moyse, HMM Consulting 9/9/2014

Introduction

In today’s business culture, specifically in North America, words are often used with good intention. They are strategically placed in policies and protocols to help define expected behaviors, vision and mission statements, etc. However, words are regularly misunderstood and misinterpreted because they are too vague, over-used or misused.

Perception, observation and one’s own life experiences are key in how one processes information, reacts to the information and ultimately behaves.

The purpose of this presentation is to try to demystify some of the commonly misused words used by management in the hopes of clarifying their expectations to their staff and customers.

Hallie Moyse, HMM Consulting 9/9/2014 2

Some commonly used words and their definitions according to Miriam Webster.com:

Confidential: secret or private; showing that you are saying something that is secret or private; trusted with secret or private information;

Ethical: involving questions of right and wrong behavior : relating to ethics; following accepted rules of behavior : morally right and good;

Judgment: an opinion or decision that is based on careful thought;

Teamwork: work done by several associates with each doing a part but all subordinating personal prominence to the efficiency of the whole.

For the purposes of our conversation, these are a few words that are misused, abused and misconstrued, and, as such do a lot of harm. When using such key words, there should be little or no room for misinterpretation. Clear guidelines must be provided so that everyone has the same understanding of their meaning and possible consequences. Is this a realistic goal?


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/

Scenario I:

At the start of every school year, a principal sits down with their staff as a whole, in teams and as individuals. The purpose is multi-functional – to review anything and anyone new, to establish lines of open communication , review schedules, etc.

During one of the first meetings the principal reminds the staff that they need to be careful of what they say and how they act & re-act in front of parents, family members, children, etc. The purpose of the reminder is to be proactive in the hopes of preventing any miscommunication between anyone.

Several days later, the principal receives a phone call / complaint from an angry parent. She learns that an educator was “innocently” speaking with a young child’s babysitter. Knowing that the family is soon moving into a new neighborhood and therefore a new school, the educator asks the babysitter if she is “moving” with the family and if so, is she looking forward to it? By the end of the conversation, the educator “has asked the babysitter to consider not moving with the family and instead staying nearby to help out a family friend!”


Did the educator do or say anything wrong?

Does the situation affect how the parent will listen and communicate with the educator in the future?

How does a seemingly “innocent” conversation blow up into something much bigger?

Is the parent justified in being irate?

Did the educator cross any lines of unprofessionalism?

Is there an ethical issue that needs to be addressed?

How should the principal deal with the parent and the educator?

How would you prevent such a situation from happening in the future?

Is this something that is to be dealt with principal vs. educator or is this a symptom of a potentially larger problem?

How to proceed….

(conversation / debate to follow)


Scenario II:

A child comes to a new school for the first time. He spends approximately one hour in his new class. Everything & everyone is new to him. Prior to placing the child in the class, all the administration knew about him was his name and birth date.

Initially the child could’ve been placed in one of two classes: 1) where he was one of the oldest, and 2) where he is one of the youngest. Based on numbers, the principal went with option 2.

After spending an hour in the class, the experienced and trusted educators in the class approach the principal and convince / insist that she move the child into the class where he would be the oldest and fit in better.

Although the principal clearly, easily and comprehensively explains the change to the parent, the mother takes the news badly and somewhat personally. The principal is standing by her decision for now. The child can always be moved to the older class in the new year.


During the one hour that the child was in the “wrong” class, the educators learn that he may have sleep apnea, that he packed some childish items in his backpack, and that his behavior is immature in comparison to the other children in the class.

Was the principal wrong and too trusting of the educators without giving the child a fair chance?

Were the educators too quick to judge the child?

Should he have been given more time to settle in or would a change later on (days or weeks) have been too difficult for the child?

How will this issue affect future communication between the parent and principal?

How to proceed…



Scenario III:

A young child is having difficulties transitioning from his old class to his new one. His parent asks his teacher if he could please spend a few minutes with one of his “best friends” in another class. Together the educator and apprehensive child walk next door to where his friend is. The educator asks her colleague if the two boys can play together for a few minutes. The colleague says “no.” The boys are four (4) years old.

In a pre-school organization where the staff are supposed to be there “for the children” and what is in their best interest, what does the “no” signify?

Does the apprehensive child feel rejection?

Does the child feel as if his feelings are not being valued?

How does the educator feel about their “no” colleagues?

What are the pros vs. cons of the 10 minutes of playing together?

How does this scenario reflect the “teamwork” element in the organization?

How to proceed…



Perspective, POV & Position

Perspective, Perception & POV (point of view) are three (3) distinct elements:

Perspective: who is telling the story; the capacity to view things in their true relations or relative importance ;

Perception: the way you think about or understand someone or something; the ability to understand or notice something easily; the way that you notice or understand something using one of your senses;

Point of View: how a story is told All three of the above as well as one’s reaction/behavior in a

given situation is largely dependant upon one’s position (job description, role & responsibilities) that one has in any group (personal or professional).

One will react very differently in all three (3) of the aforementioned scenarios based upon the role that they play. Each scenario has different roles, some similar and some not. ◦ Scenario I: educator, babysitter, parents, principal ◦ Scenario II: child, educators from two (2) groups (old & new), parent,

principal ◦ Scenario III: child, educators from two (2) groups, parents (?),

principal


Scenario I: (principal’s reaction)

The principal listens intently to the parent, acknowledging their feelings of anger, deceit and frustration, and apologizes for any lines that the educator may have crossed, although unintentionally (she hopes). Blame will not be laid anywhere until all sides are heard

The principal reassures the parent that she will speak with the educator and the rest of the staff, with the intention of letting them know that no conversation is “innocent”

Lessons to be learned: 1. NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING; NEVER ASSUME …

2. that what begins innocently will not end up with negative consequences

3. that what you say will not be repeated or misconceived

4. that what you say will be properly understood

Lessons to remember: 1. There are always 3-4 sides to a story; unless a part of it from the

onset, you will never know the truth

2. People filter and process information differently

3. All relationships are not equal


Scenario II: (administrator’s reaction)

After listening to her trusted and very experienced educators, the administrator separates the potential fear regarding the sleep apnea from the educators’ observations regarding the child’s immature and somewhat oppositional behavior.

Without wanting to get the child or his family used to the same class, upon the child’s arrival the following day, the child and parent are escorted to their new class.

A lengthy conversation takes place between the administrator and the parent. The admin focuses on doing what is in the child’s best interest and how his behavior seems more in line with the younger children.

The parent has some very valid arguments to fight the change, the most glaring one is “that Sam wasn’t given enough of an opportunity. How can he be judged after only an hour….”


Scenario III: (administrator’s reaction)

The administrator speaks with the first educator and encourages her to speak with her colleague to iron out her feelings of disappointment and anger

The administrator speaks with the second educator not regarding her tone of voice or the hurt feelings of her colleague but rather the negative consequences of her actions and tone of voice

◦ The educator should have said no in a more subtle way, explaining her reasons and not in front of the child

◦ The child’s feelings were not validated by the educator in his presence

◦ The shunned educator, now looks upon her colleague as someone who is rigid and not a team-player

◦ The “no” could have and should been delivered in a much more understanding manner

◦ The administrator also pointed out that in no way is there a risk of setting any precedent if a child once in a while stays for 10 minutes in another class. The children are 4-5 years old and will not intentionally take advantage of such a situation


1. Is it realistic to pre-define all potential actions and words in the case of the three scenarios so that such issues never arise?

2. When human beings are involved and people’s emotions are involved is everything black & white?

3. If an organization and all of its members share a vision/philosophy, is it ok to veer from it (scenario III) and at what cost?

4. If your organization is service-based, is the customer always right (scenario I)?

5. At what point should an administrator step in to a situation if not directly spoken to initially (scenario III)? Will the administrator’s involvement negatively strain any “team” relations or did the actions of the “team” players already do so?

6. If an organization’s members seemingly share the same philosophy, how and should the administration test seasoned staff or trust their experienced judgment (scenario II)?


Thank you!


Confidentiality, Professionalism and other HR Anomalies

Documents

Transcript of Confidentiality, Professionalism and other HR Anomalies