During person to person communication, several dynamics are at work, by which effective communication can result. These same dynamics can also result in ineffective communication. The foremost of these dynamics are transmission and reception. If we are aware of these dynamics, it can enable us to consider what it is we are communication and what it is that the other receives. What the other receive is determined by a cognitive which are a triadic reciprocal causation (Bandura, 1986). In this view the individual, society, and personal factors all come together to facilitate thought, feelings and beliefs. If something stated to me, is ethically wrong (based on my thought of social ethics) it affects my reception of the information and my opinion of the communicator. We each utilize an internal standard to evaluate what others are communicating to us. This internal standard, is self directed and thus statement we find unethical stem from our internal standard, which is derived from an external understanding of what society deems wrong and right.
In Alberta Bandura work, SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF MASS COMMUNICATION. Bandura states:
People are not only knowers and performers. They are also self-reactors with a capacity
for self-direction. Effective functioning requires the substitution of self-regulation for external
sanctions and demands. The self-regulation of motivation, affect and action operates partly
through internal standards and evaluative reactions to one’s own behavior (Bandura, 1991a).
The anticipated self-satisfaction gained from fulfilling valued standards and discontent with
substandard performances serve as incentive motivators for action. The motivational effects do
not stem from the standards themselves, but from the evaluative self-investment in activities
and positive and negative reactions to one’s performances
Thus effective communication results from a balanced transmission thoughts received and transmitted. Balanced is obtained, when information received is in accordance with ethics and principles of the receives psyche. This means that the transmitter of information, should take into account, the possible disposition of the receiver. We would think that professionals that administer civic duty, are aware of these factors and attempt to avoid them. But that is not the case, while receiving housing assistance through South West Behavioral Services, I found professionals to be unethical!
I had been approved for housing and was in the process of a meet and greet with my future roommate. The case manager’s Margret Finn and Johnny Garcia briefed me before the meet and greet and then we proceeded to the apartment. Two problems were made apparent to me, regarding the case managers ethics. Mrs. Finn praised my resume and seemed impressed with prior supervision/management skills I had. I was leery, wondering why my resume was of any importance – this was a housing placement not a employment opportunity. Mrs. Finn and Mr. Garcia then proceed to brief me, violating confidentiality regulations. They briefed me about their encounters with my prospective roommate. Informing me how he had embarrassed them, when he confronted them at their office, due to their neglect regarding their placement decisions. He felt that they kept placing detrimental clients with him, and that those clients behavior were a factor by which the living environment became negative and hostile. They informed me of how they wanted me to be aggressive when we arrive at the apartment and to not let the roommate take advantage of the conversation.
I could not believe that these two professional were actually communicating to me, what they desired of me, in regards to this meet and greet. I could not believe that these two “professionals” divulged personal information to me about another client. Mrs. Finn made the assertion that she would appreciate me being a quasi -attendant / advisor to my prospective roommate. She informed me that since I was studying Social Welfare, it would be great if I could advise/encourage my future roommate to consider going to community college.
It seems that during the nearly 2 years of his housing, he had failed to enroll in college as required by the program, as it pertained to him (client personal development agreement). He only had 3 months left in the program, and she felt that my experience could be affective and hopefully he would enroll before the end of the 3 months: making his case a successful transition. I informed Mrs. Finn, that I consider that employment. Mrs. Finn responded by stating, “Well don’t think of it as employment…” However what Mrs. Finn failed to realize is as a social welfare student, I am required by NASW not to do any attending/advising/counseling unless a licensed supervisor is present.
I can’t believe Mrs. Finn and Mr. Garcia actually placed me in an environment, where by my future career would be jeopardized. This ordeal particularly irritates me, seeming while living in Las Vegas Nevada, my last employer and I had confrontation with the Labor Board. My prior employer was accused of a similar ordeal. Requesting employment, but not considering it employment. The Labor Commission obtain back payment for me, seeming employment is clearly define, when the employer instructs desired assignments. Thus I find Mrs.Finn and Mr. Garcia negligent in their professions as they wrongfully used me to obtain information for them. Mr. Garcia requested similar desires, regarding my second roommate.
For more information regarding employment and non-employment: Read prior post by me, “Who’s Time Is It Anyway?”