Corinne A. Gregory's Blog

First Impressions are LASTING Impressions

So yesterday, I had a real life situation come to me that underscored the importance of being conscious of the impression you make -- or could potentially make -- on someone you meet for the first time.

This or That?

Last November, I was in a car vs. pedestrian accident -- no joke, I was hit by the pizza delivery guy in my own neighborhood as I was taking a walk after dinner. As a result, I'm in twice-weekly physical therapy for a hip sprain/strain that is stubborn in healing.   As luck would have it, someone who could be potentially influential to SocialSmarts was in town from Europe, attending partner meetings with another group. I was invited to stop by for an introduction and an opportunity to bond a little over SocialSmarts. However, one problem: the time I was supposed to stop by was directly after my physical therapy appointment; I would be wearing yoga pants and a sweatshirt.  I really wasn't comfortable meeting the "big guy" dressed like that.  My contact assured me that it was just fine -- the guy was casual, the whole atmosphere of the meetings at that point were relaxed...it would "okay" for me to come as I was.

Only I couldn't do it.  I'm the head of an organization that provides training and consulting for kids and professionals on social skills, etiquette and manners. What impression would I make -- casual or no -- if I appeared in sweats, regardless of the reason?  I decided to simply send materials for review and opt for a, hopefully, later opportunity. This gentleman already is reading a copy of my book, so he has an expectation of who I am, and, thereby, how I likely present myself. I didn't want to give him the wrong impression or change an impression he previously had based on what he had seen/read.

A flashback I had of me while I was in college came to me later that same day. This must have been...oh, only 10 years or so ago (just kidding!), so it was a clear image.  I was an Information & Computer Science Major in college, and I was continually encountering other students in the computer lab who would approach me for a conversation late in the evening or other times when we were working on assignments. At some point, the discussion would come around to the other individual asking me what my major was. When I answered, "An ICS major," I would inevitably get the response, "What? You don't LOOK like an ICS major!"  The message was clear: because I didn't look like a geek, or was nerdy  with horn-rimmed glasses and doofy attire, I couldn't possibly fit into the label of "ICS Major."

In other words, by being a reasonably attractive, socially-adept female, no less, I didn't fit the expectation of what a computer student should look like. It took people by surprise.  I mean, there are certainly infinite variations of what computer professionals look like, but really, when you hear "computer science" you think "geek" not "swimsuit model."

Why am I sharing this? Well, because it's an important point.  Sometimes it is very important that you consider what the other person is expecting when you are meeting them for the first time.  It's not automatically a bad thing to go against the expected norm, but if you do so, you should be deliberate about why you are doing it and what impression or point you are trying to make.

Now many of you don't know this, but I am a professional yacht chef as a growing "alternate" role. When you are creating, producing and serving food to high-net-worth individuals who are spending upward of $20,000-100,000 or more a week for their luxury cruise, they are expecting me to look and behave a certain way.  While I may have to throw on a tank top and shorts in order to work in a hot, steamy galley (boat kitchen) in the middle of summer, I would never appear that way up on deck with guests or owners. It's just not appropriate and would not be at all what these guests are expecting from their chef!  Now, on the dock, when it's just crew on board, it would be equally ludicrous to be wearing a button-down shirt and whites when I'm washing the boat. Often, boat crews are specifically told that they are not to wear uniform or logo'd apparel while on shore on their own time. Why?  Well, besides a number of reasons having to do with confidentiality or identification of the boat, it's also because of this: if crew are being "too casual" or behaving in a less-than-stellar manner, the owners or charters do not want them to be identified as their boat crew.  Their crew is expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner; if you're going to cut loose (and no one says you shouldn't), you shouldn't do it associated in a "professional" role.

For those of you who have been regular readers of this blog, you know I've talked previously about how quickly the brain processes a first impression so I won't repeat it here. But, I will say, because it can't be said too often, that you never get a second chance to make a first impression and, as such, you will want to take care that this impression is the one you intend to make. That means consider your wardrobe choice, your grooming, your handshake, your body language and your verbal language. Any and all of those elements can be used to support the image you want others to have -- or they can negate them.

So, the next time you go on a job interview, meet a new  important person for the first time, or even just connect with anyone you want to impress, think about what impression you are going to leave them with. As the picture above illustrates, you can play the "This or That?" game and see where the answer falls. It may surprise you...just as it may surprise the person you meet if you make the wrong choice.

Missing the Point in the Eastside Catholic Controversy

Eastside Catholic students protest about the latest instructor who has become involved in the gay marriage issue. But, students are wrong if they think the "issue" is about homosexuality.

I'm sure many of you across the country, but particularly those of you here locally in the Seattle area, have heard about the recent brouhaha at Eastside Catholic.  In the past few weeks, two of the instructor professionals have not only come out as gay/lesbian, but have also found themselves enmeshed in situations related to gay marriage.

Just this week, drama instructor Stephanie Merrow revealed that she became engaged to a woman recently. Outlets for her announcement included a local radio station where she was very direct in discussing her situation and praising students' support of her choice and actions.

Last month, a large-scale student protest ensued when Vice Principal Mark Zmuda was fired because he had married a man and kept that marriage a secret.

In both cases, students spoke out publicly and on camera, granting interviews demanding the school reconsider its policies on gay/lesbian teachers. They have boycotted classes, conducted interviews with any number of media and other groups, been outspoken in social media outlets and more. It's very admirable to take a stand for what you believe in, but I'm afraid that the students are missing a huge point...

Mark Zmuda was not sacked because he was gay. He was let go because he violated his contract with the school. While I have not personally seen the contract, I am a former Eastside Catholic parent, and so I can pretty much make an educated guess about what is in that contract. If it's similar to that of other many Christian or religious schools, there is likely a clause in their that advises the employee (teacher/staff) of the importance of upholding and adhering to the beliefs of the teachings the school follows. In the Catholic Church, at present, homosexuality is not in keeping with its doctrine and beliefs. Gay marriage, even more so, is not in keeping with the Church's teachings. Mark Zmuda signed that contract, an agreement that he would abide by those terms as part of his engagement as an employee of Eastside Catholic. It was one thing that Mark was gay; so what, big deal. That's HIS business. The problem came when he not only married another man, but then he hid that from the school. He violated the terms of his employment, and he got caught. THAT is why Mark Zmuda got fired.

The students, while they are to be commended for trying to point out how unfair intolerance is, are completely missing that vital point: when you agree to do something as a condition of employment, and you violate those conditions, you stand to face consequences. Then, on top of it, when you cover up the breach of contract and keep it a secret, it's doubly bad. It's no different than you agree to remain drug-free as a condition of having a specific job, then you get caught with drugs in your system when the employer conducts random drug testing.

So why isn't Stephanie Merrow being fired?  According to several sources, she is an independent contractor and not a contracted employee of the school. Presumably, she has not had to sign a contract with a "faith and practices" clause like Zmuda did. If she had, it would be just as appropriate to let her go as it was to remove Zmuda from his position.

That's the point that the kids are completely missing -- and many adults, too: this is not about gay/lesbian intolerance or about the "right" to gay marriage. Pope Francis himself is weighing the issues of how the Catholic Doctrine may need to evolve, given the changes in society. I'm not going to go there: that's a too weighty issue for me to even BEGIN to debate. And, it's not my job to play "God" and decide whether it's morally wrong or sinful to have same-sex relations. I know what the Church today teaches. I have plenty of gay and lesbian friends and I don't have an issue with their form of sexual and relational expression. It's THEIR business, just as it's my business which side of the sexual-orientation fence I find myself on. But what I do want to say to the kids is this:

If you are going to stand for something, be informed about what it is that caused the issue. Look at it from all angles before you stand up and protest. Because you are missing a very vital life-lesson here that may come to haunt you in a very few short years as you transition from student to employee and professional: you may be asked to agree to rules and conditions -- if you break your end of the agreement, don't be surprised when your employer breaks their end.

So, the summary of this is: this is not a gay-rights issue.  It is an employee contract issue, and, Mark Zmuda broke his contract with the school, hid the breach, got caught, and was fired.

Appropriately so.

If you have a problem with the policy, then by all means, either don't agree to the policy or work to change it. I'm betting it crossed Zmuda's mind more than once before, during, and after his marriage that he was skating on thin ice with regards to his job. It would be a great lesson he could offer to the students whose lives he was charged with helping form if he explained to them that the school acted reasonably in letting  him go. Help the kids  learn the lesson about what happens when  you brush off a contact and why acting with integrity is always the right thing, even when it's tough. I don't know what would have happened if Zmuda had been up-front about his marriage before it occurred. It's likely he still would have been out of a job, but he would have probably been asked to resign rather than abruptly fired, creating a controversy that never needed to be stirred up, and one that is inaccurate in its portrayal of the issue.

 

Cheating in Sports and in Life: The End Does NOT Justify the Means

Ok, so everyone is talking about the Lance Armstrong interview where he "comes clean" to Oprah Winfrey. After years of taking banned substances to enhance his performance, and lying about his actions for years, he has finally admitted to his doping.

I'm not impressed by his after-the-fact "falling on his sword." As many of you already know, I have some real issues with these armchair "true confessions," particularly by celebrities and public figures. Whether it's Tiger Woods' press conference where he admits to his infidelity or Bill Clinton admitting to "improper relations" with Monica Lewinsky or John Edwards finally acknowledging his affair and lovechild while wife Elizabeth battled cancer, it just seems like a media moment that's scripted to try to salvage a seriously-eroding public image. When the Titanic is goin' down...let's point out that the iceberg wasn't supposed to be there, huh?

Particularly with sports figures, it seems that what they did is somehow understandable given their positions. Look at Barry Bonds: he breaks the home run for a single season record, but it's all been done with the assistance of steroids. When asked about his usage, he admitted to it sort of: his excuse is that his personal trainer "misled him" by making him believe the drugs were really flax seed and arthritis cream. Lance Armstrong implies that it is the expectation of winning at the level top-notch athletes that drives them to win at all costs.

Oh, so are they saying that other people are essentially to blame because they cause the immoral actions?

I can understand pressure to perform.  Really I can.  But you have to consider the bigger picture: it's not just the celebrities and athletes that are taking this attitude of "hey, as long as I don't get caught, it's ok."  Consider cheating amongst our children as an example. In the most recent Josephson Institute report on cheating and ethics (2012), these are some of the results published:

51 percent of students admitted they had cheated on an exam in the past year; a third admit to doing it more than two times
55 percent said they lied to a teacher in the past year about something significant
20 percent of the students said they had stolen something from a store in the past year
One in three students admit to having used the Internet to plagiarise an assignment

And, While 92 percent of students believe their parents want them to do the right thing, more than eight in ten confessed they lied to a parent about something significant (2010 Report)

Of course, these are only the kids who had admitted it. My worry is that there are many more kids out there who are lying, but aren't willing to 'fess up to doing it!

That's where we get to the heart of the matter: it's not just the bad deed that's the problem, it's the lying and deceit that makes it worse. As human beings, we all mess up, really, we do.  We are blessedly imperfect.  But when we screw up -- whether intentionally or accidentally -- the right thing to do is to come clean and be accountable for your actions.  I've previously shared in a post about sneakiness and the damage it does that, my personal mantra has been that I'd "rather take a bad truth than a good lie."  When people lie to you, they are saying that they don't respect you, don't really care what you think and that sticking to the falsehood to preserve their "dignity" makes them much cleverer than you!

These people are often proud that they are such good liars. They will look you straight in the eye (because, after all, any of us who have watched crime shows or know anything about body language knows that someone lying will break eye contact and look downwards and to the left) and tell you something that is not true. Or, it may be only partially true. It might even be vaguely true, if you put the right "spin" on it.  And they think they can get away with it because it's "my word against yours."

Problem is, a liar's word is no good, even long after the truth has been found out and the confession has been made (if it has). Trustworthiness is a fundamental character trait; most people will assume that others are being honest with you. "Innocent until proven guilty" is one way we express that. But, "once burned, twice shy" is a saying in response to what happens once someone has been labelled a liar. Also, the common phrase "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" demonstrates how others feel toward someone who has lied to them.

The point is lying undermines any credibility the liar may have had. We may "forgive" someone who has been caught lying -- Tiger Woods is back on the PGA Tour and earning his millions, albeit at a lower rate since sponsors dropped him, -- but do we really forget?  Bill and Hilary Clinton may still be husband and wife, and Bill is certainly back in a high-profile position "saving the world," but do you really think that the rift that the cheating and lies cause (oh, we didn't even get to the Whitewater scandal) have been forgotten? Don't you now wonder how much of Hilary's recent "concussion" was true and valid without wondering if there's a more plausible explanation having something to do with the matter at Benghazi?

I guess this is why we are often cynical: we are a culture of believers in a society of liars. And when the lie is found out, why are we to believe that this is the truth, really, this time? When the "truth" contradicts the previous lies -- particularly when that lie has been going on for years and staunchly defended, even in a court of law, -- you can't help but wonder:

"Were you lying then, or are you lying now?"

 

Top 10 Posts of 2012

I started this tradition a few years back when someone asked me what the most popular posts were in the past year. Sometimes I try to predict what the "hot" topic will be for the coming year, but almost every year I am surprised by what made the Top 10.

Here, based on views over the past 12 months is the 2012 Top 10 list. I'd love to hear from you individually what you would have picked as your #1!

Memorializing Memorial Day
Leadership and the Iceberg
To end bullying requires a cultural change
Got the back to school blues
Rotary 4-Way Test: Don’t just recite it — live it
Why “Anti-Bullying” Doesn’t Work – Part I
What if schools were run like a business?
How would YOU like to be remembered?
Teen burning victim Michael Brewer’s assailants get jail
“Change” requires DOING something different

 

I find it interesting to see how many of these made last year's "Top 10 List!" Would you have predicted that? And, even more curious will be what the coming year holds for us as we strive to make this world a more respectful, compassionate and considerate place in which to live.

 ---

Are you planning to provide "Customer Service" training for your staff in the coming year?  See why Corinne's message to your employees about "It's Not Who You Know, It's How You Treat Them" will impact YOUR business like nothing you've ever seen! Mention the "Top 10 Posts of 2012" for a 12% discount on booking fees!

Control the guns? What about the shooters?

This piece appeared as a guest column in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in response to the shooting at Foss High School in January of 2007. While the circumstances around that incident are different, yesterday's shooting in Connecticut serves as a reminder that it's not enough to control guns -- bad guys will always get access to tools that hurt and kill if they are determined enough. We have to change the mindset behind these actions and the overall culture of society if we are to have a measurable impact against violence of any kind.

 

It's not enough to control guns

By CORINNE GREGORY

GUEST COLUMNIST

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Last week's shooting at Foss High School in Tacoma proves there is a fatal disease in our schools that no one wants to talk about. To say I'm absolutely outraged by this incident is an understatement. Not just because this is yet another senseless killing in schools, but also because of the reaction it generated. Immediately after the shooting, major lawmakers and policymakers such as Gov. Chris Gregoire, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and Seattle police Chief Gil Kerlikowske were essentially quoted as saying that the shooting proved that we need to have a better gun-control policy for our schools.

What? "Control the guns." What about the shooters?

How many more children have to die before people are willing to take a real hard look at our education system and decide that we must address the issue of school discipline, behavior management and social skills? The proposed "solutions" being batted around just won't work. Why? For many differing and varying reasons: � Throwing money at academic performance won't do a whit if kids don't attend schools because they're afraid.

�Metal detectors in schools won't help if students shoot one another before they get in the building.� More police on site won't generate more productive learning time and encourage students to pay attention in class, which won't improve academic test scores or educational outcomes. � None of these things will help recruit or retain qualified teachers and

staff. And they certainly won't level the playing field for disadvantaged or minority students and their families or improve the overall educational experience and effectiveness.

While controlling access and use of firearms is necessary, it's not enough.

If we're to make a lasting difference in the level of school violence and discipline, we must address the root of the problem and not simply throw more money at it for metal detectors, police on-site, etc. as a Band-Aid when we're dealing with a systemic disease.

Although it certainly costs money to implement new programs, it is not a matter of "How can we afford it?" but rather, "How can we afford not to?" The cost effects of poor social skills is not only staggering but increases with every year. Schools presently are hemorrhaging money due to the high cost of behavior management and discipline, not to mention the long-term impacts. What may initially be a small cost impact due to disciplining a young student may escalate dramatically through school suspensions, expulsions or, ultimately, incarceration, or worse.

Seattle Public Schools (as well as other schools districts within the state and nation) are in desperate need of reform, and it's my belief that true, effective education reform must deal with the issue of school discipline and inadequate social skills in our children. It's not an add-on; it's a critical, integral part of building not only good students, but good people.

Comprehensive, effective social skills education and its related positive impacts on the entire education process is not a pipe dream. It's been proven to work, repeatedly, in schools across the country. And, while it may not solve every problem plaguing schools today, it will go a long way toward repairing a great majority of them, and providing a long-term solution, at that.

Corinne Gregory is the president and founder of Bellevue-based SocialSmarts (http://www.socialsmarts.com)

 

Remembering Letitia Baldridge – More Than Just Manners

I heard a few hours ago of the passing of a dear colleague...and dare I say, friend.  Letitia Baldridge died today at age 86.   She gained her reputation as "the empress of Etiquette" (as quoted by USA Today) in the Kennedy White House as Jackie Kennedy's "social secretary," but she left a lasting legacy in the teachings, books and philosophy she shared.

"Tish" as she allowed her friends to call her, was an early influence on my work with what was then called "The PoliteChild."  I had always had a philosophy that we should be teaching our kids more than just "behavior" which is what most manners/etiquette classes focus on. I believed that we had to be sure our young people were grounded in the underlying character values -- what I called the "motivators" -- so that their behavior was in line with their attitudes.  It was soon after the first PoliteChild curriculum was completed that I came across Letitia's book "More Than Just Manners" and I was so pleased to learn that she held the same belief!

I don't know what possessed me to write her, but I think the first lettre went to her about Summer 2002 or later that same year. I sent her a package with PoliteChild materials and an outline for our "EarlyLearners" classes and she wrote back soon after, thanking me for the gift and complimenting me on offering a manners class for children as young as 2 1/2. A reasonably steady pattern of communication ensued -- not always through the USPS, but also in emails. She had a definite opinion on things and often shared her frustrations with the continuing decline of civility in the world. There was a real person behind the mannerly advice, but she always believed in practicing what she preached.

In Spring of 2005, I had an opportunity to visit Washington DC. My purpose there was to meet with several legislators and the Department of Education (what a waste of time THAT was...but that's for another day!) to share with them PoliteChild's successes and enlist support for wider adoption in schools. I let Tish know I was going to be in town; imagine my surprise when she insisted I come by to have coffee with her, if my schedule permitted.  Happily, it did.  Early on one of the mornings I was due at the Congressional offices, I arrived at the beautiful home on Massachusetts Avenue and was shown to "Ms. Baldridge's" flat up on the top floor.  I was shown into the main parlor and as I was waiting, heard a voice call out "I'll be right there!"  And...suddenly she was. This icon of civility and I was finally actually meeting her!

The house was both comfortable and beautiful, but one thing that was notable -- all these pictures on her walls of her with dignitaries, past and present.  Kennedys of course, but so many others that it was mind-boggling.  Some of those I have the blessing to share along with her -- Katie Couric among them. But it really impressed me just what a factor she has been in so many different ways.

We moved to the dining room to take coffee and there were yummy pastries as well.  I don't remember all that we talked about, but some of it was "shop" and other topics weren't. She was hugely encouraging of what I was doing and promised her support. She even offered to write a forward for the book I was planning and gave me contact info for her agent. It was a phenomenal hour and  a half, but I had to leave for my meetings -- she had taken the initiative to order me a car to take me to the Capitol as she said the traffic that time of the morning was "horrific."

Naturally, after that, we were in more frequent touch.  I don't recall what prompted it, but in Fall of 2006 (ironically, dated a week ago six years ago), Tish had had enough of the "ridiculousness" of the schools and youth behavior. She decided that she needed to go "to the top" and call attention to the successes PoliteChild was having.  I think now that she has passed, I can share this:

October 24, 2006

MEMO TO: Maria Miller, The While House

Forgive me for bothering one of the busiest offices in the land, but I thought I would personally forward to you Corinne Gregory's letter and disk on "The Polite Child." I think her project in the field of child education and manners is very worth while, and deserves to be brought to your attention.

I know you get a million of these every week. So do I, because of my writing on manners, but this one deserves to be known about, so I am taking the liberty of forwarding it on to you, thanks to Lea Berman, who lives close by.

Saluti,

Tish Baldridge

She had forwarded a copy of the letter to me; the original she sent "via personal courier" because she knew that the protocol of getting it to its addressee required a lot of twists and turns. By using her own contacts, she was able to circumvent the normal channels. In spite of all her efforts, nothing came of it, but I was so honored and humbled that Tish would actually take this step on our behalf.

 In the past few years, we lost touch. I tried to mail her a copy of "It's Not Who You Know, It's How You Treat Them" but the book was returned by the Post Office. I understood she had gotten in partnership with another individual and while I tried to contact her through those connections, no calls or emails were returned.

In so many ways, I see Tish much like I view Julia Child (and, they were similarly tall, too, go figure!): they were huge influencers in their area of expertise, not just because of their expertise, but because they made it real, personal and available to us, the "regular" folk.  I -- like many others -- was never going to be dining in a Kennedy White House, but because of her, we have the knowledge of what we are expected to do should we ever get that invite.

But beyond her lessons of behavior, were her beliefs about the value of kindness, courtesy and consideration. While it's important to be a mannerly person, if you are a good person, you will generally behave in a way consistent with Good Manners, because that's just how you treat others. All the perfect etiquette in the world will do you no good if you don't act from a center of respect and compassion.

Dear Tish, I'm sorry to hear you have left us. But, know that you have touched many lives and will never be "gone" because your teaching and your wisdom -- and your personality -- has left a real and permanent mark on us and the field we so believe in. God is very lucky to have you making sure everyone eats with the proper fork in heaven tonight!

Coach Mike Leach’s Twitter Ban Won’t Solve the Problem

So this week, the news was all a-twitter (pun intended) with word that Washington State University's football coach Mike Leach had banned his players from using Twitter.  Apparently the drastic move came about because some of his players had been caught using the social media platform for sending "vulgar" and inappropriate communications.

When I was asked to comment on the ban by Q13 Fox on Wednesday evening, my mind was spinning with the many things that are wrong with Coach Leach's approach. And, apparently, I'm not the only person who takes issue with this move as you can see in the segment Q13's Tom Yazwinski shared that evening.

 



 

 As I shared in the interview, I have several problems with how Coach Leach is handling this. While I certainly can empathize with his irritation and frustration at his players' behavior, banning Twitter is not going to solve the problem and may, actually, lead to more.

First of all, while I am not an attorney, I can imagine that the walls of Justice are literally frothing with discussions about the Constitutionality of this kind of ban.  It is a ban against free speech, and as these players are adults (well, at least by virtue of age even if not by maturity), and they do have the right to say essentially what they want.  Even if they have a "non-disaparagement clause" in their contracts, the students aren't trash-talking the school, the program or their coaches as even WSU's coaching staff admits.  True, it does not make the school look good to have its football players publicly behaving like cretins for the whole 'Net to see, but banning Twitter isn't going to change that.

What Coach has done is essentially what we, as a culture, tend to do -- take away the toys when we have abused them.  Problem is, it doesn't address the underlying reason for that abuse. No matter how this kind of communication is conducted, it's inappropriate and wrong. And these young men don't seem to understand that.  Just because you take their tweets away, doesn't mean their attitudes have changed.  I can pretty much guarantee that these kids have new Twitter ids that they are cleverly cloaking to keep anyone at WSU from recognizing them. All Coach has done is run one communication vehicle to ground. It's a Bandaid he has applied to a surface lesion while the cancer causing it remains alive and festering.

But, even if they do stay off Twitter, nothing "inside" has changed I'll bet you.  The players likely still engage in communication that would not be "approved by the Parent Teacher Association" as one article described the controversial tweets. Part of that, sadly, is part and parcel of the male-dominated pro-sports culture. Locker room talk doesn't even really belong in the locker room, but it certainly does NOT belong in public forums. Is Coach now going to put bugs in the locker room to make sure his "boys" are behaving themselves in there, too?

The bigger picture here is that you can't change behavior by dealing with "externals."  If you take away Twitter, what are you going to do about Facebook?  Or, if that doesn't work, will you confiscate cell phones because they might be sending derogatory texts?  Heck, you really want a ban: take away video games, television and all but G-rated music (if you can find that anymore!)  The point is: garbage in-garbage out.

The fact that these young men seem to see nothing wrong with this kind of communication points to a lack of courtesy, compassion and respect for others. That's a character flaw, not a technology problem. I don't know how they were raised at home, but now that they are on their own, they show a remarkable lack of good judgement. You don't "fix" that by taking away their Twitter privileges, folks.  Rather than see Coach Leach now suspend them if they are caught on Twitter (for any reason), why couldn't he just suspend them from the team for ANY incident showing lack of character?  If playing football is a privilege as Graham Watson mentioned in a recent article, then impose the requirement that all players conduct themselves in a manner deserving of the investment and committment that playing for a noted and respected school represents? Heck, if you're going to school on a full- (or even partial-) ride, then EARN it. Be the type of student, athlete and person that is worthy of that privilege!

Now, Tweet that, Coach Mike!

 ---

Did you like this? You can read more about Corinne Gregory's tips for positive social skills and professional success in  her acclaimed book: "It's Not Who You Know, It's How You Treat Them"

Peanuts’ wisdom is a sad message about bullying

I originally posted this picture last April because it really struck me how true this saying is.  Linus is seen to be declaring "No problem is so big or so complicated that it can't be run away from!"

So true as another school year is already beginning to show.

A few days ago, Monica Ann Thomas, one of my Facebook friends and another person outspoken about the problem of bullying posted this on one of the bullying groups' wall:

Well this school year has really started with a sad start. 11 suicides, 3 school shootings and who knows how many other incidents that were not reported on. Something has to be done and it can't wait either. We have to do more to prevent such senseless acts. Please take a moment each and every day to speak with your children. Let them know they are not alone and that there are many who can and want to help. The latest statistics even show that almost half of the teachers agree with us. If teachers are seeing a need that makes me wonder why the schools deny the problem. Teachers are the closest to the kids to see the issue so why won't the administrators admit the problem? Please take a stand and help us to save the children.

 

I had to reply to her comment that much of why the problem of bullying isn't being adequately addressed is because, as a rule, if an individual school admits it has a problem, then it is obligated to really DEAL with it. I called it the "ugly baby" problem -- in other words, no one wants to admit they have an ugly baby. I can understand that a school doesn't want to be known for having an issue with bullying because it looks bad, but let me tell you this...pretty much EVERY school in this country HAS A BULLYING PROBLEM.  No surprise!

The surprise is when a school really takes the time to analyze the problem and deal with it. Heck, here we go again with more comments about "adequate legislation" that will supposedly curb the problem, but haven't we learned that laws do NOT fix bullying?

At the same time the problem is rampant, schools feel they can't do more about it.  "Heck, we already HAVE an anti-bullying policy in place," or "we do an anti-bullying assembly each year to raise awareness."  How MANY times have you heard that, and how many times have we talked about this here in this blog? Yet...has ANYTHING changed?

One of the reasons I wrote my most recent book, "Breaking the Bullying Culture" was because I wanted to not only point out how pervasive and engrained bullying is, I wanted to really examine what's not working in the "war" against bullying, but more importantly talk about what DOES work.  I was very fortunate to receive this review from Walt Gardner. For those of you who don't know Walt, he writes the regular "Reality Check" blog for Education Week.  I sent Walt a copy of the book for his reading and here's what he had to say:

It's hard to find an author who goes beyond bemoaning a front-page problem in education to provide realistic strategies as a solution. Corinne Gregory pulls no punches in presenting readers with a disturbing picture of bullying in all its forms, including its latest cyber manifestation. Yet despite the formidable challenges confronting schools, she doesn't despair. "Education Reform and Other Myths: Breaking the Bullying Culture" is indispensable reading.

I am very honored and humbled by Walt's review, but I wish I could share this message of hope with more schools, administrators and lawmakers.  We CANNOT take a late-game approach to bullying and make any real impact. The problem starts so much earlier than when bullying itself has erupted. If you wait until then, the problem is SO much harder to fix, much more expensive, and less effective.

Maybe therein lies the problem.  By the time it's gotten to the point of bullying, maybe it IS so  much easier to ignore it and hope it goes away...after all, the kids WILL graduate and leave some day, right? Next year may be better...

---

Did you like this? More about why anti-bullying doesn't work can be found here: http://corinnegregory.com/blog/2012/02/28/why-anti-bullying-doesnt-work-part-i/

 

 

Dang, but

Julia Child and the Value of Human Relations

I think it's fitting that I write this as Julia Child's 100th birthday is being recognized.  Lately, but coincidentally, I've become quite fascinated with Julia and the impact she (and others of her era) made on the food world. So, recently, I had an opportunity to read her book, "My Life in France" co-written with Alex Prud'homme and published in 2006, two years after her passing.

This book documents her years in France, where she learned to cook and also chronicles her evolution from budding chef to cookbook author to culinary media star. What I love about this book was not just the talk about food and how she developed as a chef, but also how her philosophy and "voice" can be heard in its pages.  (Now, I have to say that so far I haven't read any of Julia's other books -- although I have one poised on my nightstand -- so maybe this is typical of Julia's books).  I never had a chance to meet the woman, but through her book, I feel like I am getting to know the character that she was.

There was a passage that struck me early on in the book that I think we can all take a lesson from.  Julia is discussing how shopping for food in Paris was a "life-changing experience." According to her, it was during these daily shopping excursions that she learned "one of the most important lessons of my life: the value of les human relations."

As she writes...

The French are very sensitive to personal dynamics, and they believe that you must earn your rewards.  If a tourist enters a food stall thinking he's going to be cheated, the salesman will sense this and obligingly cheat him. But if a Frenchman senses that a visitor is delighted to be in his store, and takes a genuine interest in what is for sale, then he'll just open up like a flower. The Parisian grocers insisted that I interact with them personally: if I wasn't willing to take the time to get to know them and their wares, then I would not go home with the freshest legumes or cuts of meat in my basket.

I think Julia's experiences are something we can learn from today: that the connections we make with people are hugely valuable. People are more likely to treat us well if we treat them well to begin with. Think about it: have you ever had the occasion to be given a little extra attention, maybe been treated to an additional "something" (tangible or not) simply because you took the time to smile, be nice, maybe chat up the person you were dealing with?  I've even had the experience of being upgraded to Business Class on a trans-Atlantic flight when I was holding a Coach ticket because I was friendly to the ticket agent when so many other passengers were surly and rude.

I believe whole-heartedly in treating others like they matter -- it's just part of my operating DNA. My kids have observed that "Mom, you just have a way of connecting with people."  But it's not a trick and it didn't always come natural. It comes from practice.  I know the names of most of the people at the grocery store I frequent.  When I'm checking out, I ask them how THEIR day is (they are trained to ask me about mine as part of Customer Service).  I smile and wave thank you to the flaggers directing traffic in construction zones.  I compliment the vendors at our local Farmer's Market about their wares, the quality of their produce, or their displays. People appreciate it when you notice what they do or who they are.  We all want to feel like we matter, like what we do and who we are is somehow important to someone else.

I don't have any agenda or ulterior motive for doing it. I just genuinely like and value other people. We all need one another and really, life is better when we can be cordial and caring.  Julia was known for being brash and rough at times, and definitely had an opinion, but she also worked very hard to feed people's bodies and souls. I think the takeaway from her message onles human relationsis that if we expect to GET the best, we have to be willing to GIVE the best. Certainly when we do take the time to connect with people, to be kind, to be...well, just NICE, it doesn't guarantee that people will respond in kind. But, by doing our best to "Treat Others the Way You Want to Be Treated," we can guarantee that we have done our part. And, if others don't match that,tant pis,as Julia would say.  Too bad.

---

Did you like this? Find more lessons on the importance of human relations in It's Not Who You Know, It's How You Treat Them -- available both in print and in ebook form. Follow this link (http://www.ItsNotWhoYouKnowBook.com) for details and ordering information.

When Your Child is the Bullly

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to be the guest of Margaret Larson and New Day Northwest to talk about the recent bullying incident of bus monitor Karen Klein.  I had been asked to come as the expert on what can be done about bullying and the other guest was a former bus driver who had experienced years of bullying on her routes driving teens.

During the interview, Margaret asked me what parents should do if they are alerted by school officials that there may be a problem with their child -- either as a bully or a victim. This is a really tough situation and I've had to answer this question many times.  As I explained in the interview, a parent's natural reaction is to say, "Oh, no, not MY child."  I went on to further comment that while it's natural to be defensive and feel this way initially, parents have to be open to finding out what's going on and becoming part of the solution. It may be, for example, that there is a misunderstanding, or perhaps their child got caught up in something that was going on. But, as I pointed out, we can't just assume that the teachers/administrators have it out for our kids -- that helps no one, particularly not your child if there IS a problem.

Well, apparently one of the viewers of New Day didn't get what I was saying. Her comment on the show's Facebook page read:

I liked this segment but I don't like that Corinne Gregory's first response would be "that can't be!" if someone came to her about her child doing something wrong. That just adds to the problem! Until you know what really did happen, you should not just assume that it couldn't be your child. Your child needs to know that his parents will hold him accountable if it turns out he really was wrong. If he really is a bully and the parent is not aware of it, it does not help fix the problem if the parent says "that can't be!"

Well, that wasn't AT ALL what I said, and I'm sorry that the viewer misunderstood me. I am keenly aware and support the position that if the child is really a bully, they need to be held accountable for their actions. I'm a huge fan of personal accountability in all areas; frankly, I think there is WAY too little of that going around.

But the problem is that too many parents will just automatically assume that the educational "establishment" is out to get their child.  And part of this is due both to the natural feeling of wanting to protect your child. You don't want to be told that your kid is a BAD KID and that's what you hear when someone tells you that Little Johnny or Little Suzie have been involved in an "incident."

The other issue is that we frequently relate our children's behavior with our "success" or failure as a parent. When our kids do well, we feel great about our parenting. When they are having issues, we feel that others will interpret that as a personal reflection on our parenting skills. Sometimes that is true; not all parents are doing what they should be to raise kids who are living up to their potential and developing positive behavior and habits. But, there are also situations where parents are doing the very best they can...yet things "go wrong" for varying reasons.  Maybe, as I said in the interview, the child got caught up in something bigger than him- or herself. Much of bullying is a cultural thing where there is a sort of pack mentality that makes it easier for kids to participate once others have started the bullying.  Maybe your child is acting out because of stress -- is your family going through some troubled times like a divorce, death of a loved one or pet, a sudden move?  There are also times where there is something emotionally disconnected or truly a clinical issue that causes anti-social behavior. The point is, it's not necessarily anyone's particular "fault."  But if you take it that way, and respond accordingly, you are just helping propagate the problem.

It's often the knee-jerk reaction of overly-defensive parents that prevent the problem getting stopped in its tracks.  I do agree there are some people on the educator/administrator side who have a hair-trigger when it comes to bullying. My goodness, there is so much in the media about the problem that I think we also can over-react to situations -- not that I'm saying we don't need to take bullying seriously. We DO.  But we ALL need to realize that we are working toward the same goal -- that of stopping bullying and creating positive environments for all kids and adults alike.  Putting up barriers and making assumptions about "who is the enemy" is not productive and only adds to the problem rather than solving it.

If it turns out that the reports are true, then you, as a parent HAVE to get involved to correct your child's behavior. How you do that is dependent on what happened and its severity, but can include evertying from just talking to your child about why bullying is wrong, to imposing consequences, to, if the situation or behavior warrants, seeking professional help. Remember that you are not just helping the victim if you hold your child accountable -- you are helping your child understand why this behavior is wrong and will not be tolerated.

To the New Day viewer who clearly misinterpreted what I said: I hope this clears it up.  I believe in accountability; I believe in responsibility. Even though it's tough to hear that our child has messed up, we owe it to everyone involved to uncover and accept the truth -- whatever it is -- and work toward an effective solution.