Suppose you are negotiating a settlement in a physician malpractice case where your client is the injured party in which you are aware of information about the physician which came to you through a source completely unrelated to the case. The information involves the physician’s impending divorce, and his wife has apparently discovered some very serious “bookkeeping” irregularities in his business which suggest he has been robbing his partners for over 20 years. Your client’s case against the physician is really fairly weak.
From a purely business standpoint, do you think it is acceptable to tell your counterpart in the negotiation that you will use this information in every possible way to get the best deal for your client? Why or why not.
From an ethical standpoint, do you think it is acceptable to tell your counterpart in the negotiation that you will use this information in every possible way to get the best deal for your client? Why or why not.
From a Christian standpoint, do you think it is acceptable to tell your counterpart in the negotiation that you will use this information in every possible way to get the best deal for your client? Why or why not.
Should your answer really change across answers 1, 2, and 3? Why do we tend to think that use of power like that is often acceptable in a “business” situation, but maybe not ethically, and almost certainly not from the Christian standpoint?
Finally, when managing behaviour, teachers must consider their own emotional regulation. Recent research indicates that that students are adversely influenced by teachers’ expression of negative emotions (Sutton et al. 2009). Teachers will experience discomfort or frustration, and they are entitled to express these feelings, as long as they do not do so in a way that harms their pupils. Shouting at children, for example, makes them feel small, sad, ashamed and embarrassed (Thomas and Montgomery, 1998). Patrick et al. (2003) state that unproductive negative emotions of teachers may lead to problems in management and discipline. I conclude that emotional regulation is vital for teachers who expect their pupils to meet high expectations of good behaviour. Stifling negative emotions can lead to burnout, so it is important to develop practical ways of managing them. I observed one teacher after class using her lesson evaluation to note and express how she felt when things did not go as planned in class. By writing down and expressing any negative emotions such as frustration and anger, she created a record she could reflect on and return to in future, in effect setting an example for herself. One of the best ways of down-regulating negative emotions is “reflecting on previous situations when poor results resulted from [teachers] not having regulated their emotions” (Sutton 2004). The teacher also explained that if she was having a bad morning, for example, she would make extra effort to prepare, such as by modifying the lesson plan to include activities she may find easier to manage. Other coping strategies include the use of humour (such as making a joke to pupils) in response to an emotional cue such as anger or frustration – as long as sarcasm is not used. This use of humour, known as a responsive strategy, when used to defuse a situation of poor behaviour such as children shouting or being disruptive, can help both redirect pupils’ attention to the behaviour expected of them, and up-regulate the teacher’s mood (Gross and John, 2003). Other strategies include cognitive techniques such as positive visualisation. Research shows this on-the-spot reappraisal of a teacher’s mood and the presentation of a consistent emotional front produces higher levels of engagement, and following Teachers’ Standard 7, higher levels of efficacy for classroom behaviour management (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy 2001; Sutton and Knight 2006a).