what is it about an academic environment

what is it about an academic environment that makes us (well, some of us, anyhow) able to convey information to people about what they're doing wrong, that is taken as feedback by them that they're willing to work on, and that in other contexts creates defensiveness and an unwillingness to budge?  what is that?  aside from just the nuanced and sensitive teaching style some have, there's also something about the environment and expectations.  why couldn't a workplace create that?  what would that look like?

if you have a place where what you want is for people to stop judging children, and treat them with kindness and respect, and treat them with gentleness and compassion, and you have people working with children who are not doing that, who are, over and over again, conveying to children something much more negative, like, "you are unacceptable as you are and you better change if you want me to accept you" with not only their words but their tone and their facial expressions and their body language, then how do you make them aware of this without also shaming them?  when it's school, it's not shame at all, it's instruction.  it's learning, it's growth.

but why are they afraid of it in a workplace, afraid that the only way it can be conveyed is by being so subtle that the loudness of the anxiety and judgment that's causing the behavior makes them unable to even hear the soft messages of what else could be happening?  and if you need a place with a certain attitude to prevail, why can't you teach it, instill it?  why did emmi pikler choose only brand new, inexperienced individuals to work at Loczy?  because she knew that people who were experienced in this field would bring bad habits to the table.  instead she wanted people who would be a bit more open to how things would be done.

but if/when you are working with people who've been at it a long time, if they're interested in the message and willing to change, why aren't we willing to be direct and insistent with them, like, hey, try this, okay, no, try it like this, no, this, okay, yeah, try that out for a while, see how it feels, and report back.  and then later they feel it out, and discuss what works and what doesn't, and if there are any misconceptions on the part of the one trying it out about why it seems to not be working, then the supervisor explains what they see and why they think it's not working, and they work on making it even better.  why can't we do that?  and if our primary responsibility is to the children, and we believe this way is the right way, then why do we hesitate?

my conclusion is that there is still a fundamental misunderstanding about what it takes to create the kind of environment we want, full of people who understand what we want them to understand, and feel what we want them to feel in order to get it in their bones.  it's one thing to understand the philosophy and to desire that you will surround yourself with others who share your philosophy and to hope to inspire others to share your philosophy, but these things are not the same as knowing how to actually accomplish it.  i think that people don't understand how to accomplish it.  and i think it's not that distantly connected to what's happening in our schools these days, where you can't just insist that people really learn before you move them along to the next phase.