Workplace Communication between principal and a teacher - Essay Example

Workplace Communication between principal and a teacher The workplace association between a superior and a person in a subordinate position is perhaps one of the most significant relationships in an organization. This is because the manner in which superiors and subordinates communicate or interact is significant in influencing achievement of organization goals and objectives. Further, the problems and challenges inherent in the superior-subordinate relationship determine the extent of workers’ involvement in the work environment and their ability to reach amicable resolutions. Generally, effective communication lays the foundation for equally effectual management (Samovar & McDaniel, 2013). There are many superior-subordinate interactions that provide insight into workplace communication and there is none that exemplifies this interaction better than a principal-teacher work relationship. This paper focuses on a previously observed principal-teacher interaction, primarily taking note of significant elements including patterns of verbal communication, power influence in the communication approach, and an examination of whether the interaction constitutes an intercultural communiqué. In the course of evaluating workplace interaction between the said principal and a teacher, several observations were drawn. Key among the aspects denoted was the principal’s role as a coordinator of virtually all administrative duties, while striving to ensure efficient operation of the entire institution. The principal was also responsible for ensuring that subordinates including teachers and other staff members worked towards achieving school goals. Overall, it was apparent that the principal’s role revolved around efficient leadership and management of school matters. On the other hand, the observed tutor bore the responsibility of teaching students, evaluating their performance and reporting assessment outcomes to the principal for formulation of learning improvement strategies. In terms of communication, the principal simply communicated tutorial guidelines and school policies to instructors, including the one under scrutiny. There was occasional interpersonal communication between the superior and his subordinate, particularly during staff meetings. In regard to the minimal verbal communication that took place between the principal and the teacher, there seemed to be some level of rigidity and a strict and demanding tone on the principal’s part. The teacher, just like her colleagues did not give tutorial and assessment feedback directly to the principal. Instead, information was conveyed to the head of teaching staff, then to the assistant principal and finally to the principal for eventual analysis. The communication approach adopted in this case was primarily downward and upward structured. As mentioned, the principal tended to speak in a direct and somewhat demanding tone, especially when confronting the teacher about results he deemed inadequate or unsatisfactory. This explicitly shows that the principal serves best as a director, with limited concern for cordial work relations. In addition, his tendency to tell the teachers to deliver exceptional outcomes in a strict tone of voice, coupled with being argumentative and maintaining his position in a situation portrays him as a dominating leader (Tannen, 1995). However, the principal’s mode of verbal communication also brings out some positive leadership attributes. For instance, his tendency to convey points in a relatively louder voice than other staff members during meetings shows assertiveness, decisiveness, need to streamline institutional operations, and swiftness, which he expects of those under his management. In contrast, the teacher in question did not communicate in a direct manner, as discerned from her inability to explicate issues outlined in the routinely assessment report. Her silent and compliant demeanor portrays the teacher as an indirect verbal communicator, who opts to follow directions and focus on assigned tasks (Tannen, 1995). These features also depict the teacher as a cooperative subordinate, who is not comfortable in confrontational or argumentative situations. In the superior-subordinate relationship under scrutiny, there was significant power influence. For instance, the principal, as indicated maintained his position in any confrontation with the teacher or during staff meetings. As a result, there are strong indications that although the teacher could be a stringent adherent to issued instructions, the principal’s dominance could have dissuaded her from expressing her views on issues. In addition, the principal‘s propensity to issue instructions to subordinates and expecting them to fully comply with the guidelines while generating the best possible outcomes, shows his influence as a authoritative leader (Madlock, 2012). During staff meetings, it was apparent that the principal had the last word in regard to administrative decisions and formulation of strategies aimed at improving the institution’s academic performance, even though the teacher and her counterparts were directly responsible for guiding and influencing students’ performance. The communication approach adopted between the principal and teacher and her other colleagues is largely ineffective. This is primarily due to the fact that the principal applies an autocratic or authoritarian mode of directive management. This was evident not just from the principally downward conveyance of instructions and outcomes, but also from the principal’s failure to take teachers’ opinions into consideration during decision making and strategy formulation. Further in the few incidences of direct communication, the principal tended to be demanding and barely gave time to the teacher(s) to respond or present their views on various topics of discussion. This authoritarian approach to communication is also not suitable to a service providing setting like a school, where teamwork and interactive communication would be a better fit in fostering idea sharing and collective decision making for the benefit of all persons involved. Further, passing information downwards or upwards through intermediaries, as was the case when direct communication did not occur, is not only time consuming, but it could also lead to distortion of information before it gets to the principal or the teacher. It is also important to note that neither the principal nor the teacher can transmit confidential information, which is crucial especially where one intends to advice the other to rectify an observed or identified wrongdoing. The relationship between the principal and the teacher can be classified as an intercultural communication exchange. This is primarily due to the fact that it is communication between two individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds. Unlike common misconception that culture solely constitutes ethnic disparities; people are progressively recognizing that culture encompasses other elements including linguistic tendencies, and behavioural as well as thought patterns (Crossman & Bordia, 2011). Clearly, therefore, the two individuals in focus come from widely varying cultural backgrounds. Linguistically, the two differ in terms of both verbal and non-verbal communication, with the principal commanding confidence and portraying assertiveness, while the teacher depicts a silent and compliant demeanor. These disparities clearly show that the interaction involves information sharing between two people at different control and awareness levels, and both participate in largely diverse activities where one is an authoritarian communicator and the other a compliant listener and follower. Workplace relationships between superiors and subordinates as indicated lay a vital foundation for effective management and goal attainment. This is because such relationships involve sharing of ideas, cooperative decision making, resolution of emergent issues and overcoming extant challenges (Samovar & McDaniel, 2013). In this case, the relationship between a principal and a teacher, characterized by authoritative downward communication shows that absence of complete engagement between involved parties can have detrimental effects. For instance, the teacher in question was not adequately motivated to teach and improve overall performance of her students. This is because she felt like she was denied an opportunity to develop strategies that could foster learners’ participation in the academic process. The overall perception derived from the communication approach adopted at the learning institution was that the principal simply laid out performance expectations and the requisite teaching methods, yet he did not directly interact with students to fully understand their learning requirements (Chitakornkijsil, 2010). Further, while the teacher called for team oriented communication, in order to account for opinions from culturally diverse individuals, the principal was adamant on adhering to a universal interaction approach that did not take diversity into consideration. In conclusion, the principal-teacher association analyzed in this case exemplifies a superior-subordinate relationship that should be redefined, to accommodate open communication. For example, if the principal in question would make an effort to share ideas with the teacher, while listening to and understanding her point of view, the latter would diminish her dependence on him as a leader. Such horizontal or participative mode of communication would consequently fuel the teacher’s motivation, since there is a sense of heightened accountability to recommended work strategies and decisions. Most importantly, leaders must recognize that, good communication should be interactive hence warranting dedication from all parties involved, if they intend to foster productive workplace relations. For this reason, the mode of communication adopted in a work setting must be oriented towards an approach, which both parties can relate to and engage in without feeling isolated. References Chitakornkijsil, P. (2010). Intercultural communication challenges and multinational organization communication. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 3(2), 6-20. Retrieved from http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=59220340&site=eds-live Crossman, J., & Bordia, S. (2011). Friendship and relationships in virtual and intercultural learning: Internationalising the business curriculum. Retrieved from http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ951999&site=eds-live Madlock, P. E. (2012). The influence of power distance and communication on Mexican workers. Journal of Business Communication, 49(2), 169-184. Retrieved fom http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=73043036&site=eds-live Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., & McDaniel, E. R. (2013). Communication between cultures 8th ed. Independence, KY Wadsworth. Tannen, D (1995). The power of talk: Who gets heard and why. Retrieved from http://faculty.georgetown.edu/tannend/pdfs/the_power_of_talk.pdf Read More