Learning experiences, Moment 1 – Perspective from Viviane Robinson
Moment 1a
Michael:
So, that was pretty interesting, Catherine. There was a lot that was happening between the two of you. But you parted pleasantly. So what was wrong with it?
Viviane:
Michael starts by asking Catherine for her evaluation but he could have equally started by disclosing his own. The sequence is unimportant. What is important is that the facilitator clearly discloses his or her evaluation and creates space for the other person to express a different view.
Catherine:
Well, all the time I sensed Jack was just trying to be pleasant but not engaged. And I really wanted to say a few things, and I just didn’t know how to say them really. So I just ended up making it pleasant as well.
Michael:
And it started really with his continuing to stand, so that he only had a half-baked conversation with you.
Catherine:
So what was going through my head was I’d really like him to sit down, but I didn’t know how to tackle that. And then I noticed that he wasn’t looking at me anyway while I was talking, and, yeah, he wasn’t engaged.
Allan:
And, interestingly, I wasn’t even listening.
Catherine:
Weren’t you?
Viviane:
Notice how Catherine explores the clear evaluations she has received from Michael and Allan.
Allan:
No, I just heard words and then agreed with whatever she said.
Michael:
So you were watching your class?
Allan:
Yep.
Michael:
And deliberately watching your class, with only half an ear at best on what Catherine was saying.
Allan:
Yep.
Michael:
Because of the issues that you have got with the whole professional development approach.
Allan:
I guess so, yeah. And obviously this is meant to be a short conversation because I was standing up.
Michael:
So from your point of view, Catherine, what you are wanting to do is to surface that disconnection and talk about it.
Viviane:
Here Michael checks with Catherine about what she wants to learn.
Catherine:
It just seemed to be the whole situation seemed not conducive to me saying “Well, come on, we need to talk about this; and where can we go and do that?” But I think if I thought it through, there would be a way through it, but I just couldn’t think of it at the time. And that’s often the problem – you know what’s going through your head but you don’t know how to actually say it in a respectful way, apart from just saying “sit down”.
Viviane:
Catherine is describing the dilemma she often feels between saying what she thinks and maintaining a respectful relationship. As we go through the case, we will see that this dilemma arises when we want something from someone but don’t clearly say so or give them a real choice.
Michael:
Well, I think there’s a lot of merit in that, because that’s where it seemed to me that you lost it, in one sense.
Catherine:
Yeah, definitely.
Michael:
You said, “Could you sit down?” or something of the equivalent, and he said, “No”, and you said, “Oh, all right then.” So from that stage on, he was only ever going to be listening with half an ear.
Catherine:
That’s right. And I’m not actually respecting where I’m coming from either – that’s what I thought about afterwards, is … I’m desperately tripping over to respect him, but I’m not actually respecting myself and giving myself a fair go. So, yeah. That was quite a shortened conversation of what actually happened, but that was just the essence of how it all panned out.
Viviane:
Catherine realises that she has not been true to her own values, which include respect for self as well as respect for others. One of the things that is implied by respect for self is clearly stating what we want and why. Respect for others involves helping others to do the same. The importance of these values and their role in effective interpersonal relationships are explained more fully in the section on Model I and Model II.
Michael:
So why don’t you say something a little bit more assertive to him? Or … you could do, or I could have a go playing you, and see what happens. And he could be Jack, or you could be Jack.
Viviane:
Michael gives Catherine lots of choice about the particular learning strategies that will be most useful to her at this moment.
Catherine (to Allan):
Do you want to keep doing Jack and I’ll have a go? And then maybe Michael can have a go after that.
//
Catherine:
So thanks, Jack that was a great lesson. Have a seat and we’ll have a quick chat about it.
Jack:
I’ll just keep standing. I need to keep an eye on my class. They’ll play up if I don’t keep an eye on them.
Catherine:
Oh, OK. Well, that’s not really going to work in terms of really engaging in a conversation. We've got some pretty important things to talk about. And I sense that if you just stand up, what might happen is you won’t be able to really focus on it. So what we could do is get someone to look after your class, and we can sit at the back of the room, or we could go out to the staffroom – what do you think about that?
Viviane:
Here Catherine asserts what she assumes to be important to both of them (“We’ve got some pretty important things to talk about”) rather than stating clearly what is important to her and why. In terms of the theory and practice of Model II, which is the standard to which she aspires, Catherine’s assertion is not strongly consistent with respect for self or respect for others.
Jack:
There’s no one to look after the class; I can’t leave them here.
Catherine:
Well, Sarah – I had a quick chat with Sarah before; she said she doesn’t mind.
Jack:
Oh, did she? Oh, yeah, OK.
Catherine:
Is that all right?
Jack:
Sure, yep.
//
Catherine:
What do you think about that?
Moment 1b
Michael:
Yeah, well, I mean he’s sitting down! But I was just thinking that, as he did that, what’s still sitting there is an unwillingness to really engage with you in the conversation that you haven’t confronted. So he’s sitting down, but he’s still … what he is probably doing is thinking “She’s trapped me a little bit, but I still don’t want to really be here.”
Viviane:
Catherine asks Michael for his evaluation of her role play and Michael gives a direct reply, thus making it easy for Catherine to see whether or not she agrees. Michael is modelling how to give direct feedback to teachers about their achievement of goals that are important to them.
Catherine:
Is that how you felt?
Viviane:
Notice how, before accepting Michael’s evaluation, Catherine checks with Allan about whether her speech had the impact on him that Michael suggests. Michael’s directness has not prevented her from independently checking his evaluation.
Allan:
Yep, definitely.
//
Michael:
Well, Jack, thanks for letting me watch the lesson. As we talked about before, I want to have a talk about how that went and where we go from here. So grab a seat, and we’ll have a conversation.
Jack:
I just want to stay standing so I can keep an eye on the class. ‘Cause they’ll play up if I don’t keep an eye on them.
Michael:
Well, I can understand that, but that’s not going to work for me, because the things I want to talk with you about are very important from my perspective. And it’s not going to work with you legitimately having half a brain on the kids and only half a brain on me. So we need to find some other way of handling that. It may be possible to find a reliever. I’ve talked with Sarah, and she is happy to watch your class while we have a chat.
Jack:
Yep, OK.
Michael:
And you’re happy to give me that time, so you can focus on it then?
Jack:
OK, yeah.
Michael:
Sure?
Jack:
Yep.
Michael
Sure?
Jack:
Yeah, that’s fine.
//
Catherine:
What was different? I don’t understand what was different?
Moment 1c
Allan:
It felt a little bit different. I felt less coerced, and it was ... I felt it was more reasonable for me that second time than it was the first time. The first time, I was just doing it because you kind of trapped me a little bit. And I don’t know what the difference was; it was quite subtle.
Michael:
I don’t know what it was, either. But what it might have been was, say, I may have been clearer than you about making sure that you were committing to that agreement, rather than complying with my suggestion. It’s a bit ridiculous to, so I pushed you … You only pushed him twice to make sure; I pushed him three times, and I elevated my voice a bit more each time to see, “Are you really sure about this? This is going to be a serious conversation.”
Catherine:
So it’s the checking out.
Michael:
So you had to bring yourself to it more each time; and each time you bring yourself to it, it’s less being compliant with what I want.
Viviane:
Michael has more assertively said what he wants and why and avoided assuming or implying that Allan should want the same thing. By clearly separating what he wants from what Allan may want, he creates the expectation that Allan will make up his own mind and either commit to the conversation or declare why he cannot do so.
Allan:
And the other thing that you did is you said why it was, that it was significant to you. And so there was that sense that, OK, that’s reasonable for Michael’s benefit to do this, ‘cause he said, “This is something that is quite important for me – ‘cause I consider this an important conversation. And so that is what would work for me, so I’d really like to find a way around it.” And so there were probably greater rationales around why I should.
Catherine:
Is that the “respect yourself” bit of it?
Michael:
So part of that is also making it visible to the other person, by saying, “This is important to me. I don’t care at this moment whether it’s important to you or not, it’s important to me. And I only want to have a conversation that’s important to me in ways that reflect that importance. But, simultaneously, I also want a conversation that’s important to you.”
Viviane:
Here Michael is saying that when he is stating what is important to him and why, he is not distracted by anticipating others’ reactions. He also cares about and makes space for the other person to say what is important to them.
