Joyce N. Boghosian photographer. Source: www.whitehouse.gov
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Gandalf?!
I worked on an industrial recently playing a wizard as a job applicant. The makeup folks, Jessica deBen and Katie Licina, did a great job!
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Monday, January 17, 2011
Communicating in Groups
As simple as the concept of Communication would seem, it is anything but. There are many aspects involved in the act of communication, some obvious and others as subtle as a spring breeze. So if the art of personal communication involves complex conscious and unconscious “messages”, the intricacies of Communication in Organizations are many and sometimes complicated. In recent years, however, a new form of problem resolution and thus communication has developed in organizations – the concept of individuals working in groups. I find that this innovation is a terribly interesting and successful concept that is revolutionizing the way in which businesses are conducting their affairs. When implemented properly, I believe that a company’s overall success will flourish by the work produced in these group or team efforts. One of the key elements to a group’s success is what methods it uses for decision-making and problem-solving, and so I should like to explore these different approaches as well.
The study of communication has seen many, many differing theories and approaches brought forth. For example, there have been numerous perspectives as to how communication relates to organizations and the workplace. The Scientific Management school of thought, the Human Behavior approach and the Integrated Perspective are three of the very different concepts of how communication shapes institutions and/or how the institutions’ structure creates communication.
These theories’ divergence is akin to, “which came first, the chicken or the egg?”
Henri Fayol (1841-1925), founder of the Center for Administrative Studies, for instance, believed strongly in a strong chain of command to rigidly control the transmission, and especially, the path of messages. Therefore, in this Scientific Management view of organizational communication, there was a distinct hierarchy, which needed to be closely adhered to; messages moved in a very precise line from top to bottom, with occasional upward-moving ones along this scalar chain. Power came from above and those below had very clear and delineated roles to play as workers in the association.
The Human Behavior approach believed that the overall attitude and input of the employees were crucial for the healthy existence of an organization. Rensis Likert (1903-1981), for example, put forth his theory of participative management, which placed members in small functioning groups linked together and overlapping throughout the organization. This “linking pin” concept created strong, cohesive and healthy bonds throughout. Likert contended that “the supportive atmosphere of the effective group promoted creativity, motivated people … and exerted more influence on leadership than in other types of systems” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009, p. 76). Likert was ahead of his time, presenting the idea for what would later develop into the concepts for Self-Managing Teams and Team-Based Organizations, which will be discussed shortly.
These early theories were understandably a bit simplistic in their view of organizational life. A new form of business structure has presented itself, and I believe it to be very intriguing and viable – the forming of teams and groups within an organization. Replacing the linear hierarchal constructs of the early- and mid-twentieth century, the creation of small, often goal-oriented groupings of individuals were formed. The nature and purpose of the groups varied, but the concept was rather straightforward; create a body of creative input that would produce a result that exceeded the sum of its individual members. In Thinking Through Communication (2008), Sarah Trenholm states that “groups provide more input than do individuals” and speaks of “group synergy…the idea that groups are often more effective than the best individuals within them” (p. 180).
Though there are different types of groups (e.g. long-standing teams, project teams and quality teams to name a few), the intention is to form a nearly self-regulating unit whose intention is to solve either a general situation or a specific issue within the organization, while upholding the organization’s best interests. As Ms. Shockley-Zalabak puts it, “Groups also contribute to establishing the shared realities of the organization” (2009, p. 186). Rather than having the traditional scalar chain of management above and supervising several individuals working on their own separate projects, we have an abundance of idea sources with, hopefully, a strong collective identity striving for the betterment of the larger group as a whole. A communication network that shares information and ideas becomes a powerful entity indeed.
This is quite a departure from the way business in America has functioned for decades. Rather than a manager supervising and responsible for individuals each working at their own separate task, a group consists of those individuals all working together as a team, in a cooperative, collaborative fashion to reach important goals within the organization. Instead of separate beings working in a somewhat isolated niche on their own separate functions and tasks, we have a conglomerate of team members working, ideally, in a cohesive, collective fashion to reach the team’s goals.
Many of us will find ourselves working in our primary work team. This may be one in which we are relegated to doing a limited number of specific tasks with little collaboration with others. The more tasks, and cooperative ones at that we are given, will require us to share ideas and try to solve problems with others in our team more and more. This is where good communication competence is vital. One must be able to have the skills to work and communicate closely with others in a collaborative environment. Carl Larson and Frank LaFasto (1989) declared that three components were crucial for successful teamwork: “(1) the possession of essential skills and abilities, (2) a strong desire to contribute, and (3) the capability of collaborating effectively.” They emphasized the need for collaborating successfully with others and “the importance of selecting team members capable of working well with others.”
Working within a group requires a considerable amount of socialization within it. The creation of a group from inception can be a very delicate process of getting to know each member and finding one’s own place within the group. Richard Moreland and John Levine (1982) see group socialization as a kind of contest of domination or sublimation between the individual and the group. Bruce Tuckman’s (1965) Five-Stage Model posits that a newborn group goes through a distinct period of each of the following: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. These stages consist of the individuals feeling each other out in a getting-to-know-you atmosphere; becoming more comfortable with the situation and jockeying for different roles; finding workable techniques for reaching their goals; reaching satisfactory conclusions; and dispersing once the objective has been reached.
In their paper, Functional Roles of Group Members in the Journal of Social Issues (1948), Kenneth Benne and Paul Sheats define the different roles one might adopt in a group dynamic, both as Task Roles and Maintenance Roles. Task roles are assumed to further the group’s goals, while maintenance roles are more as a social support for the group.
Knowing where one fits into the group by the role one has adopted helps ensure an accurate self-perception which is important in all communication scenarios. The key element, however, is, again, having the ability to work with others, and so recognizing which cog in the machine you are, is vital to your and the group’s success.
Once formed and up and running, the group must learn how to make (the best possible) decisions, and how to solve problems, whether they are problems within the group, or problems regarding the potential solution to the group’s current focus. As mentioned, knowing what role one fills in the group affects how one personally fits into the scheme of things regarding these issues. If one is, for instance, what Benne and Sheats refer to as an Information Giver, one must come to the group meetings prepared to contribute salient information regarding the issue(s) at hand so the rest of the group can process the input for problem resolution.
As to the process of solving a certain problem or circumstance, some traditional techniques include forming an agenda, brainstorming, the Delphi Technique and nominal group technique. In each of these, there has to exist a cohesive identity within the group and an eventual concurrence of approach. The Standard Agenda, for instance, was presented by philosopher John Dewey in 1910, and called for a six-step approach: (1) problem identification, (2) problem analysis, (3) criteria selection, (4) solution generation, (5) solution evaluation and selection and (6) solution implementation. The group members attempt to identify the problem as specifically as possible; recognize the factors contributing to the problem; select specific ranges of change; produce multiple, potential solutions; analyze and choose a single solution; and, finally, put the solution to work.
In Brainstorming, the members simply free associate and “throw into the hat” as many ideas as possible, as impractical or nonsensical they may seem. No evaluation occurs at this point. Later these ideas are examined, possibly elaborated upon, and then the most promising are discussed and voted upon.
The Nominal Group Technique is a variation on brainstorming. The individual members work upon the problem on their own, and then present solutions while expounding upon them at the group’s next meeting. The best ideas are voted upon, and then discussion begins among the group to select the ultimate solution.
The Delphi Technique removes the face-to-face aspect of decision-making and problem resolution. The most important element of this procedure is the leader who in this process is known as the charging authority. The charging authority, or charge agent, selects the members from whom he will solicit ideas and input for a particular subject. The responses are submitted in written form, and so the individual members never interact. There is feedback provided by the charge agent after all input has been received. The thinking behind this process is to eliminate stronger personalities from potentially steam rolling the other members, creating a very one-sided concept; all the members, who are anonymous to one another, can feel free to express their opinions without fear of criticism or attack. The Delphi Technique, however, has been criticized as often being used in a different fashion, manipulating the outcome by the charge agent. Lynn Suter (1996) has gone so far as to say, “…the effect of this unethical manipulation of people is to create polarized camps.” I personally feel that this technique can be valuable in certain circumstances but in general, I do not think it ideal as it keeps human interaction out of the picture.
It cannot be overstated that the key to the success of these teams and/or groups is the dedication of trustworthy individuals to work selflessly and cooperatively. The ultimate group that relies on these qualities is the self-managing team, mentioned earlier. “Self-Directed (or Self-Managing) Teams are teams that have been structured to manage and coordinate their own activities and make many of the day-to-day decisions that would have traditionally been made by a supervisor or manager. They usually have responsibility for a complete piece of work (such as engine assembly) and they work quite closely and interdependently” (Buzzle.com). Members of these teams must be unbelievably proficient at working successfully with others to solve problems and make important decisions.
Another emerging entity is the team-based organization, which is comprised almost entirely of teams and groups working independently and self-managing. The structure of this kind of establishment is referred to as “flat”, implying that it lacks the vertical structure of the older, traditional, linear hierarchy.
As I had stated, team and group processes are becoming the norm in the business/ organizational world. “In fact, as early as 1991, the U. S. Department of Labor identified teamwork as an essential skill…” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 197). As a job-seeker entering into an unfamiliar job market, I am aware that I must now develop tangible organizational skills in general; but more specifically those I shall need to work in group and team environments. Having had virtually no prior experience in these venues, I must begin by evaluating what capabilities, if any, I have that will allow me to succeed there. Unfortunately, my personal inclinations and preferences are to work solo. I am by nature a nonsocial individual, so I shall have to overcome my tendencies and learn to work in a cooperative and collaborative environment.
What minor exposure I have had to operating in a group has shown me where I believe I fit regarding Benne and Sheats’ task and maintenance roles. I would have to say that my typical task role is both “Opinion Giver” and “Evaluator-Critic”; I feel better suited for seeing what does and does not work, and offering input accordingly. My maintenance, or social support role, is probably the “Standard Setter”; I focus on not allowing the group to settle for mediocre output.
I have tried to make sense of this animal, the group in the organizational workplace. I believe I have shown its value, and its special requirements. A group member must be a competent communicator, as well as a well-socialized being; and must have strong abilities for working successfully with his team members to achieve the collective goal. I hope to become one of these individuals; but I am realistic in seeing that I have work to do to attain an adequate level of performance as a member of a hard-working, productive group. I believe I am up to the challenge, and shall immediately begin my hunt for these all-important skills for successful collaboration.
Groups – this is indeed a very exciting and viable concept; individuals working in a self-contained environment that promotes autonomy, responsibility and productivity. This “flat” model, I believe, is so superior to the conventional vertical constructs that I am truly anxious to be an integral part of one soon and see the actual workings from within. A body that works together in a well-choreographed fashion with strong ideals and strong goals is an exceptional organism that is bound to produce exceptional results.
References
Benne, Kenneth & Sheats, Paul (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41-49.
Jay, C. (Published 1/25/05) Business management: Self-managing & directed teams.
Retrieved 1/12/10 from http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-21-2005-64580.asp
Larson, C. E. and LaFasto, F. M. (1989). Team work: what must go right/what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shockley-Zalabak, P.S. (2009). Fundamentals of organizational communication: knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values. Boston: Pearson.
Suter, Lynn (1996). The Delphi Technique: What is that new process being used at public forums to reach consensus? Retrieved 1/11/10 from www.learn-usa.com/trans-formation_process/acf001.htm
Trenholm, Sarah (2008). Thinking through communication: an introduction to the study of human communication. Boston: Pearson.
The study of communication has seen many, many differing theories and approaches brought forth. For example, there have been numerous perspectives as to how communication relates to organizations and the workplace. The Scientific Management school of thought, the Human Behavior approach and the Integrated Perspective are three of the very different concepts of how communication shapes institutions and/or how the institutions’ structure creates communication.
These theories’ divergence is akin to, “which came first, the chicken or the egg?”
Henri Fayol (1841-1925), founder of the Center for Administrative Studies, for instance, believed strongly in a strong chain of command to rigidly control the transmission, and especially, the path of messages. Therefore, in this Scientific Management view of organizational communication, there was a distinct hierarchy, which needed to be closely adhered to; messages moved in a very precise line from top to bottom, with occasional upward-moving ones along this scalar chain. Power came from above and those below had very clear and delineated roles to play as workers in the association.
The Human Behavior approach believed that the overall attitude and input of the employees were crucial for the healthy existence of an organization. Rensis Likert (1903-1981), for example, put forth his theory of participative management, which placed members in small functioning groups linked together and overlapping throughout the organization. This “linking pin” concept created strong, cohesive and healthy bonds throughout. Likert contended that “the supportive atmosphere of the effective group promoted creativity, motivated people … and exerted more influence on leadership than in other types of systems” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009, p. 76). Likert was ahead of his time, presenting the idea for what would later develop into the concepts for Self-Managing Teams and Team-Based Organizations, which will be discussed shortly.
These early theories were understandably a bit simplistic in their view of organizational life. A new form of business structure has presented itself, and I believe it to be very intriguing and viable – the forming of teams and groups within an organization. Replacing the linear hierarchal constructs of the early- and mid-twentieth century, the creation of small, often goal-oriented groupings of individuals were formed. The nature and purpose of the groups varied, but the concept was rather straightforward; create a body of creative input that would produce a result that exceeded the sum of its individual members. In Thinking Through Communication (2008), Sarah Trenholm states that “groups provide more input than do individuals” and speaks of “group synergy…the idea that groups are often more effective than the best individuals within them” (p. 180).
Though there are different types of groups (e.g. long-standing teams, project teams and quality teams to name a few), the intention is to form a nearly self-regulating unit whose intention is to solve either a general situation or a specific issue within the organization, while upholding the organization’s best interests. As Ms. Shockley-Zalabak puts it, “Groups also contribute to establishing the shared realities of the organization” (2009, p. 186). Rather than having the traditional scalar chain of management above and supervising several individuals working on their own separate projects, we have an abundance of idea sources with, hopefully, a strong collective identity striving for the betterment of the larger group as a whole. A communication network that shares information and ideas becomes a powerful entity indeed.
This is quite a departure from the way business in America has functioned for decades. Rather than a manager supervising and responsible for individuals each working at their own separate task, a group consists of those individuals all working together as a team, in a cooperative, collaborative fashion to reach important goals within the organization. Instead of separate beings working in a somewhat isolated niche on their own separate functions and tasks, we have a conglomerate of team members working, ideally, in a cohesive, collective fashion to reach the team’s goals.
Many of us will find ourselves working in our primary work team. This may be one in which we are relegated to doing a limited number of specific tasks with little collaboration with others. The more tasks, and cooperative ones at that we are given, will require us to share ideas and try to solve problems with others in our team more and more. This is where good communication competence is vital. One must be able to have the skills to work and communicate closely with others in a collaborative environment. Carl Larson and Frank LaFasto (1989) declared that three components were crucial for successful teamwork: “(1) the possession of essential skills and abilities, (2) a strong desire to contribute, and (3) the capability of collaborating effectively.” They emphasized the need for collaborating successfully with others and “the importance of selecting team members capable of working well with others.”
Working within a group requires a considerable amount of socialization within it. The creation of a group from inception can be a very delicate process of getting to know each member and finding one’s own place within the group. Richard Moreland and John Levine (1982) see group socialization as a kind of contest of domination or sublimation between the individual and the group. Bruce Tuckman’s (1965) Five-Stage Model posits that a newborn group goes through a distinct period of each of the following: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. These stages consist of the individuals feeling each other out in a getting-to-know-you atmosphere; becoming more comfortable with the situation and jockeying for different roles; finding workable techniques for reaching their goals; reaching satisfactory conclusions; and dispersing once the objective has been reached.
In their paper, Functional Roles of Group Members in the Journal of Social Issues (1948), Kenneth Benne and Paul Sheats define the different roles one might adopt in a group dynamic, both as Task Roles and Maintenance Roles. Task roles are assumed to further the group’s goals, while maintenance roles are more as a social support for the group.
Knowing where one fits into the group by the role one has adopted helps ensure an accurate self-perception which is important in all communication scenarios. The key element, however, is, again, having the ability to work with others, and so recognizing which cog in the machine you are, is vital to your and the group’s success.
Once formed and up and running, the group must learn how to make (the best possible) decisions, and how to solve problems, whether they are problems within the group, or problems regarding the potential solution to the group’s current focus. As mentioned, knowing what role one fills in the group affects how one personally fits into the scheme of things regarding these issues. If one is, for instance, what Benne and Sheats refer to as an Information Giver, one must come to the group meetings prepared to contribute salient information regarding the issue(s) at hand so the rest of the group can process the input for problem resolution.
As to the process of solving a certain problem or circumstance, some traditional techniques include forming an agenda, brainstorming, the Delphi Technique and nominal group technique. In each of these, there has to exist a cohesive identity within the group and an eventual concurrence of approach. The Standard Agenda, for instance, was presented by philosopher John Dewey in 1910, and called for a six-step approach: (1) problem identification, (2) problem analysis, (3) criteria selection, (4) solution generation, (5) solution evaluation and selection and (6) solution implementation. The group members attempt to identify the problem as specifically as possible; recognize the factors contributing to the problem; select specific ranges of change; produce multiple, potential solutions; analyze and choose a single solution; and, finally, put the solution to work.
In Brainstorming, the members simply free associate and “throw into the hat” as many ideas as possible, as impractical or nonsensical they may seem. No evaluation occurs at this point. Later these ideas are examined, possibly elaborated upon, and then the most promising are discussed and voted upon.
The Nominal Group Technique is a variation on brainstorming. The individual members work upon the problem on their own, and then present solutions while expounding upon them at the group’s next meeting. The best ideas are voted upon, and then discussion begins among the group to select the ultimate solution.
The Delphi Technique removes the face-to-face aspect of decision-making and problem resolution. The most important element of this procedure is the leader who in this process is known as the charging authority. The charging authority, or charge agent, selects the members from whom he will solicit ideas and input for a particular subject. The responses are submitted in written form, and so the individual members never interact. There is feedback provided by the charge agent after all input has been received. The thinking behind this process is to eliminate stronger personalities from potentially steam rolling the other members, creating a very one-sided concept; all the members, who are anonymous to one another, can feel free to express their opinions without fear of criticism or attack. The Delphi Technique, however, has been criticized as often being used in a different fashion, manipulating the outcome by the charge agent. Lynn Suter (1996) has gone so far as to say, “…the effect of this unethical manipulation of people is to create polarized camps.” I personally feel that this technique can be valuable in certain circumstances but in general, I do not think it ideal as it keeps human interaction out of the picture.
It cannot be overstated that the key to the success of these teams and/or groups is the dedication of trustworthy individuals to work selflessly and cooperatively. The ultimate group that relies on these qualities is the self-managing team, mentioned earlier. “Self-Directed (or Self-Managing) Teams are teams that have been structured to manage and coordinate their own activities and make many of the day-to-day decisions that would have traditionally been made by a supervisor or manager. They usually have responsibility for a complete piece of work (such as engine assembly) and they work quite closely and interdependently” (Buzzle.com). Members of these teams must be unbelievably proficient at working successfully with others to solve problems and make important decisions.
Another emerging entity is the team-based organization, which is comprised almost entirely of teams and groups working independently and self-managing. The structure of this kind of establishment is referred to as “flat”, implying that it lacks the vertical structure of the older, traditional, linear hierarchy.
As I had stated, team and group processes are becoming the norm in the business/ organizational world. “In fact, as early as 1991, the U. S. Department of Labor identified teamwork as an essential skill…” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 197). As a job-seeker entering into an unfamiliar job market, I am aware that I must now develop tangible organizational skills in general; but more specifically those I shall need to work in group and team environments. Having had virtually no prior experience in these venues, I must begin by evaluating what capabilities, if any, I have that will allow me to succeed there. Unfortunately, my personal inclinations and preferences are to work solo. I am by nature a nonsocial individual, so I shall have to overcome my tendencies and learn to work in a cooperative and collaborative environment.
What minor exposure I have had to operating in a group has shown me where I believe I fit regarding Benne and Sheats’ task and maintenance roles. I would have to say that my typical task role is both “Opinion Giver” and “Evaluator-Critic”; I feel better suited for seeing what does and does not work, and offering input accordingly. My maintenance, or social support role, is probably the “Standard Setter”; I focus on not allowing the group to settle for mediocre output.
I have tried to make sense of this animal, the group in the organizational workplace. I believe I have shown its value, and its special requirements. A group member must be a competent communicator, as well as a well-socialized being; and must have strong abilities for working successfully with his team members to achieve the collective goal. I hope to become one of these individuals; but I am realistic in seeing that I have work to do to attain an adequate level of performance as a member of a hard-working, productive group. I believe I am up to the challenge, and shall immediately begin my hunt for these all-important skills for successful collaboration.
Groups – this is indeed a very exciting and viable concept; individuals working in a self-contained environment that promotes autonomy, responsibility and productivity. This “flat” model, I believe, is so superior to the conventional vertical constructs that I am truly anxious to be an integral part of one soon and see the actual workings from within. A body that works together in a well-choreographed fashion with strong ideals and strong goals is an exceptional organism that is bound to produce exceptional results.
References
Benne, Kenneth & Sheats, Paul (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41-49.
Jay, C. (Published 1/25/05) Business management: Self-managing & directed teams.
Retrieved 1/12/10 from http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-21-2005-64580.asp
Larson, C. E. and LaFasto, F. M. (1989). Team work: what must go right/what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shockley-Zalabak, P.S. (2009). Fundamentals of organizational communication: knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values. Boston: Pearson.
Suter, Lynn (1996). The Delphi Technique: What is that new process being used at public forums to reach consensus? Retrieved 1/11/10 from www.learn-usa.com/trans-formation_process/acf001.htm
Trenholm, Sarah (2008). Thinking through communication: an introduction to the study of human communication. Boston: Pearson.
Take the "Party" Out of Party Politics
Our nation’s forefathers constructed a considerably logical structure to sustain this new and strong democracy. They created a triad of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches – an intuitive separation to ensure their separate viability. They gave sometimes broad, general guidelines, and at other times very specific details for implementation.
One of these branches, the Legislative, is now in crisis and must be rescued. When the Constitution was written, it did not specify that members of two separate and incompatible parties populate Congress; and yet that is the case today. Our current two-party system of government is destroying the health and well-being of this country, and must be dismantled.
Our elected officials are supposed to be concerned solely with the welfare of American citizens, and yet they have instead adopted a philosophy of narrowly following the tenets of their chosen party, regardless of the specific issue at hand. Rather than looking at each issue on a case-by-case basis and searching for the merit contained therein, they respond in an immediate knee-jerk reaction determining where it rests within the parameters of their individual party philosophy.
Whatever happened to the supposed sincere belief in Bipartisanship so sought after during the Clinton years? That is, after all, the ideal, is it not? -- to have all members of the legislature working together for the betterment of the life and spirit of the American people. As Julian E Zelizer, special reporter for CNN, opines, “(But) bipartisanship is also a valuable objective, and good to have as part of our political mix. When both parties are open to sometimes entering into negotiations and reaching agreements, this improves the chances for major policy breakthroughs that will last over time” (2009, para. 5). In a perfect world, this would be the case, Congress as an altruistic body motivated to unselfishly improve the quality of life for its constituents – all its constituents.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. We, the people, do not have a body of highly moral and objective decision-makers working for “the greater good.” Instead, we have both Senators and Representatives bickering and nitpicking like children with the aim of shoring up the bragging rights of their individual parties. They are more interested in an “us versus them” stance rather than with looking objectively at each issue and making their choices based on the good of the people. This approach is weakening our country and all who reside herein.
This is a terribly unsettling time in our history with many important issues that will affect the short-term and, more importantly, long-term welfare of hundreds of thousands of Americans; and yet these important issues are being used as pawns in the game of “Risk” being played by our legislators. The first Stimulus Package, for example, was voted down because of just this kind of bipartisan bickering. Finally, this much needed legislation was passed, but with strong and blatant Republican resistance. With a strong pro-Republican slant, writer Christopher Beam of Slate Magazine states, “at this moment, unanimous opposition was the smartest stance House Republicans could have taken—both politically and ideologically. Voting against the bill was good politics because it shows that the GOP can't be persuaded by charm alone, presidential or otherwise” (2009, para. 2, 3). Here is an example of ignoring the potential benefits of the issue, and showing more concern for “the party line” and an attitude of resistance for its own sake.
“A nearly $820 billion stimulus package passed the House of Representatives Wednesday without a single Republican vote. The bill now moves to the Senate, where it stands a better chance of picking up at least a modicum of bipartisan support,” says Russell Grim of the Huffington Post (2009, para. 1). How can this be? A bill introduced to aid Middle America amidst one of the greatest financial crises of the last hundred years, and yet those comprising one of the parties in the House all believe that it is bad for the country? What is the rationale here? Are the members of one party blind to the realities of a bill while the other clearly sees its actual relative worth? Is it logical that all members of one “club” have a superior grasp of a concept, and can foretell the future, while the other is ignorant to its shortcomings? Is one party, and one party alone, in possession of a magic pill that grants the ability to clearly see truth and consequences?
The original Bailout Plan was presented to the House in September of 2008 and was crushed by the opposing party. “Following the bill’s failure, both parties embarked on a round of bitter finger-pointing. Congressional Republicans cited a speech by Ms. Pelosi [Democrat] on the House floor that blamed the economic crisis on years of Republican economic policies, including deregulation. … Democrats, dismissing complaints about Rep. Pelosi’s speech, immediately blamed Republicans for failing to deliver enough votes on their end” (Lueck, Paletta & Hitt, 2008, para. 16). Bickering and more bickering, like two teams of second-graders arguing whether Gerry Kowalski crossed the goal line before going outside the birch tree which is clearly out of bounds; this is our Congress.
Democrats are not innocent in this petty war of parties. In a Hyscience.com op-ed article (Abdul, 2008, para. 3) we find, “China is drilling for oil closer to South Florida than American companies are allowed to; outer Continental Shelf drilling was supported by 81 percent of Republicans and opposed by 83 percent of House Democrats; the proposed drilling in Alaska was supported by 91 percent of Republicans and opposed by 86 percent of House Democrats ….new refinery capacity… oil shale exploration…. coal-to-liquid containing stupendous oil equivalents…. lowering the price of gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil and cost of goods.” All these proposals for helping to break America’s dependence upon foreign oil were universally approved by at least eighty percent of Republicans, and rejected by at least eighty percent of Democrats. Again, what does one party possibly know that the other does not regarding what is best for the country? Where are these magic pills coming from?!
The time for “politics as usual” must come to an end. We, the American people, have to find a way to get our elected officials in the Legislature to find as their motivation the good of the people, and not “what the party line is.” Why have previous pleas by Americans for bipartisanship gone unheeded? John Nichols, writer for The Nation posted, “Citizens at the grassroots do not want Congress to become a snakepit of partisan backbiting” (2002). Citizens in the very politically savvy town of Newton Pennsylvania were recently interviewed (February 2010) by Washington Post Staff Writer, Paul Kane; and the majority expressed disgust at the partisan politics practiced in the Capitol City. “So the disgust over Washington's dysfunction is even sharper here. The politics they see playing out are ‘a high school game’ of ‘tit for tat,’ a ‘schoolyard game,’ a ‘two-headed snake,’ and the federal city is a place where ‘you can't change anything…’” Citing one of the residents, Leonard Wilson, Kane reports, “Calling himself an ‘idealist,’ Wilson said that ‘one-upmanship’ has made legislative success impossible. ‘It gets in the way of progress. It precludes open thinking,’ he said.”
Bipartisanship is a must. It is the only logical way that the overall good of the nation is achieved. It is what the country wants. That said, I no longer believe that it is possible; the two parties are too dug in and set in their ways. They each see the other as adversaries rather than allies; and if change has not occurred in all this time, I do not see it as a probability in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, I propose a very drastic and yet necessary move – the abolition of the two-party system in the United States. Since these two entities continue to work at cross-purposes to the detriment of the nation, they must go.
To replace our current two-party system, I suggest we implement a form of Proportional Representation (PR) which is currently used successfully in several countries such as Switzerland, Germany, Norway and Finland to name a few. The encyclopedia at AbsoluteAstronomy.com defines PR as: “Proportional representation (PR), sometimes referred to as full representation, is a category of electoral formula aimed at securing a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates (grouped by a certain measure) obtain in elections and the percentage of seats they receive (usually in legislative assemblies).”
There are different forms of Pr, such as party-list proportional representation, however, I believe that the Single Transferable Vote system would be the ideal. Again referring to AbsoluteAstronomy.com’s encyclopedic definition, “The Single transferable vote (STV) is a system of preferential voting designed to minimize ‘wasted’ votes and provide proportional representation while ensuring that votes are explicitly expressed for individual candidates rather than for party lists. It typically achieves this by using multi-seat constituencies (voting districts) and by transferring all votes that would otherwise be wasted to other eligible candidates. … STV initially allocates an elector's vote to his or her most preferred candidate and then, after candidates have been either elected or eliminated, transfers surplus or unused votes according to the voters' stated preferences.”
More simply put, STV functions like a plurality voting system, but is more refined in application. Voters choose a “first choice,” “second choice,” etc. Depending on which of the various available formulae is used, points are allotted to those in the “first choice,” “second choice,” etc. so that a fair representation of the voters’ wishes results. The Ace Network, which describes itself as, “The ACE network promotes credible, and transparent electoral processes with emphasis on sustainability, professionalism and trust in the electoral process,” puts forth this opinion on STV, “as a mechanism for choosing representatives, STV is perhaps the most sophisticated of all electoral systems, allowing for choice between parties and between candidates within parties. …Furthermore, voters can influence the composition of post-election coalitions, as has been the case in the Republic of Ireland, and the system provides incentives for interparty accommodation through the reciprocal exchange of preferences between parties.” As there would be no more “parties” the previous quote could refer to ideologies rather than parties, per se.
To paraphrase one definition, insanity is to continue doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Well the status quo of a two-party system for the operation of our Congress has shown repeatedly that it just does not work. It would, therefore, be insanity to not make a change for a more practical structure for our law-making body. I realize that implementing the Single Transferable Vote system would take a Constitutional Amendment; and that, by definition would have to involve those who are part of the problem. Perhaps a national referendum could be proposed, circumventing the two parties.
Whatever the tools and methods required, it is vital for this country to undertake the dissolution of the Democratic and Republican Parties; and, further, to disallow the future creation of any political parties. If the STV is not put into place, then some other form of election that will prohibit the existence of two warring factions must be adopted. This country can no longer afford to have as its legislative members immature and petty, self-serving individuals.
REFERENCES
Abdul (2008, June 18). Democrats oppose American independence from foreign oil and defend their position with illogical spin and same old party talking points.
Hyscience. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/06/democrats_oppos.php
Beam, C. (2009, January 29). Partisan now, bipartisan later: The logic behind Republican opposition to Obama's stimulus package. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from http:// www.slate.com/id/2210082/
Grim, R. (2009, January 28). Stimulus package passes with zero Republican support. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com 2009/01/28/ obama-im-confident-stimul_n_161654.html
Kane, P. (2010, February 25). Washington rancor angers bipartisan-minded Pennsylvania town. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/24/AR2010022405161.html?referrer=emailarticle
Lueck, S., Paletta, D. & Hitt, G. (2008, September 30). Bailout plan rejected, markets plunge, forcing new scramble to solve crisis. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122270285663785991.html
Nichols, J. (2002. January 22). A bipartisan scandal. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/3/a_bipartisan_scandal
Zelizer, J. E. (2009, November 3). What happened to bipartisanship? Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/03/zelizer.not.fathers.bipartisanship/
One of these branches, the Legislative, is now in crisis and must be rescued. When the Constitution was written, it did not specify that members of two separate and incompatible parties populate Congress; and yet that is the case today. Our current two-party system of government is destroying the health and well-being of this country, and must be dismantled.
Our elected officials are supposed to be concerned solely with the welfare of American citizens, and yet they have instead adopted a philosophy of narrowly following the tenets of their chosen party, regardless of the specific issue at hand. Rather than looking at each issue on a case-by-case basis and searching for the merit contained therein, they respond in an immediate knee-jerk reaction determining where it rests within the parameters of their individual party philosophy.
Whatever happened to the supposed sincere belief in Bipartisanship so sought after during the Clinton years? That is, after all, the ideal, is it not? -- to have all members of the legislature working together for the betterment of the life and spirit of the American people. As Julian E Zelizer, special reporter for CNN, opines, “(But) bipartisanship is also a valuable objective, and good to have as part of our political mix. When both parties are open to sometimes entering into negotiations and reaching agreements, this improves the chances for major policy breakthroughs that will last over time” (2009, para. 5). In a perfect world, this would be the case, Congress as an altruistic body motivated to unselfishly improve the quality of life for its constituents – all its constituents.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. We, the people, do not have a body of highly moral and objective decision-makers working for “the greater good.” Instead, we have both Senators and Representatives bickering and nitpicking like children with the aim of shoring up the bragging rights of their individual parties. They are more interested in an “us versus them” stance rather than with looking objectively at each issue and making their choices based on the good of the people. This approach is weakening our country and all who reside herein.
This is a terribly unsettling time in our history with many important issues that will affect the short-term and, more importantly, long-term welfare of hundreds of thousands of Americans; and yet these important issues are being used as pawns in the game of “Risk” being played by our legislators. The first Stimulus Package, for example, was voted down because of just this kind of bipartisan bickering. Finally, this much needed legislation was passed, but with strong and blatant Republican resistance. With a strong pro-Republican slant, writer Christopher Beam of Slate Magazine states, “at this moment, unanimous opposition was the smartest stance House Republicans could have taken—both politically and ideologically. Voting against the bill was good politics because it shows that the GOP can't be persuaded by charm alone, presidential or otherwise” (2009, para. 2, 3). Here is an example of ignoring the potential benefits of the issue, and showing more concern for “the party line” and an attitude of resistance for its own sake.
“A nearly $820 billion stimulus package passed the House of Representatives Wednesday without a single Republican vote. The bill now moves to the Senate, where it stands a better chance of picking up at least a modicum of bipartisan support,” says Russell Grim of the Huffington Post (2009, para. 1). How can this be? A bill introduced to aid Middle America amidst one of the greatest financial crises of the last hundred years, and yet those comprising one of the parties in the House all believe that it is bad for the country? What is the rationale here? Are the members of one party blind to the realities of a bill while the other clearly sees its actual relative worth? Is it logical that all members of one “club” have a superior grasp of a concept, and can foretell the future, while the other is ignorant to its shortcomings? Is one party, and one party alone, in possession of a magic pill that grants the ability to clearly see truth and consequences?
The original Bailout Plan was presented to the House in September of 2008 and was crushed by the opposing party. “Following the bill’s failure, both parties embarked on a round of bitter finger-pointing. Congressional Republicans cited a speech by Ms. Pelosi [Democrat] on the House floor that blamed the economic crisis on years of Republican economic policies, including deregulation. … Democrats, dismissing complaints about Rep. Pelosi’s speech, immediately blamed Republicans for failing to deliver enough votes on their end” (Lueck, Paletta & Hitt, 2008, para. 16). Bickering and more bickering, like two teams of second-graders arguing whether Gerry Kowalski crossed the goal line before going outside the birch tree which is clearly out of bounds; this is our Congress.
Democrats are not innocent in this petty war of parties. In a Hyscience.com op-ed article (Abdul, 2008, para. 3) we find, “China is drilling for oil closer to South Florida than American companies are allowed to; outer Continental Shelf drilling was supported by 81 percent of Republicans and opposed by 83 percent of House Democrats; the proposed drilling in Alaska was supported by 91 percent of Republicans and opposed by 86 percent of House Democrats ….new refinery capacity… oil shale exploration…. coal-to-liquid containing stupendous oil equivalents…. lowering the price of gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil and cost of goods.” All these proposals for helping to break America’s dependence upon foreign oil were universally approved by at least eighty percent of Republicans, and rejected by at least eighty percent of Democrats. Again, what does one party possibly know that the other does not regarding what is best for the country? Where are these magic pills coming from?!
The time for “politics as usual” must come to an end. We, the American people, have to find a way to get our elected officials in the Legislature to find as their motivation the good of the people, and not “what the party line is.” Why have previous pleas by Americans for bipartisanship gone unheeded? John Nichols, writer for The Nation posted, “Citizens at the grassroots do not want Congress to become a snakepit of partisan backbiting” (2002). Citizens in the very politically savvy town of Newton Pennsylvania were recently interviewed (February 2010) by Washington Post Staff Writer, Paul Kane; and the majority expressed disgust at the partisan politics practiced in the Capitol City. “So the disgust over Washington's dysfunction is even sharper here. The politics they see playing out are ‘a high school game’ of ‘tit for tat,’ a ‘schoolyard game,’ a ‘two-headed snake,’ and the federal city is a place where ‘you can't change anything…’” Citing one of the residents, Leonard Wilson, Kane reports, “Calling himself an ‘idealist,’ Wilson said that ‘one-upmanship’ has made legislative success impossible. ‘It gets in the way of progress. It precludes open thinking,’ he said.”
Bipartisanship is a must. It is the only logical way that the overall good of the nation is achieved. It is what the country wants. That said, I no longer believe that it is possible; the two parties are too dug in and set in their ways. They each see the other as adversaries rather than allies; and if change has not occurred in all this time, I do not see it as a probability in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, I propose a very drastic and yet necessary move – the abolition of the two-party system in the United States. Since these two entities continue to work at cross-purposes to the detriment of the nation, they must go.
To replace our current two-party system, I suggest we implement a form of Proportional Representation (PR) which is currently used successfully in several countries such as Switzerland, Germany, Norway and Finland to name a few. The encyclopedia at AbsoluteAstronomy.com defines PR as: “Proportional representation (PR), sometimes referred to as full representation, is a category of electoral formula aimed at securing a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates (grouped by a certain measure) obtain in elections and the percentage of seats they receive (usually in legislative assemblies).”
There are different forms of Pr, such as party-list proportional representation, however, I believe that the Single Transferable Vote system would be the ideal. Again referring to AbsoluteAstronomy.com’s encyclopedic definition, “The Single transferable vote (STV) is a system of preferential voting designed to minimize ‘wasted’ votes and provide proportional representation while ensuring that votes are explicitly expressed for individual candidates rather than for party lists. It typically achieves this by using multi-seat constituencies (voting districts) and by transferring all votes that would otherwise be wasted to other eligible candidates. … STV initially allocates an elector's vote to his or her most preferred candidate and then, after candidates have been either elected or eliminated, transfers surplus or unused votes according to the voters' stated preferences.”
More simply put, STV functions like a plurality voting system, but is more refined in application. Voters choose a “first choice,” “second choice,” etc. Depending on which of the various available formulae is used, points are allotted to those in the “first choice,” “second choice,” etc. so that a fair representation of the voters’ wishes results. The Ace Network, which describes itself as, “The ACE network promotes credible, and transparent electoral processes with emphasis on sustainability, professionalism and trust in the electoral process,” puts forth this opinion on STV, “as a mechanism for choosing representatives, STV is perhaps the most sophisticated of all electoral systems, allowing for choice between parties and between candidates within parties. …Furthermore, voters can influence the composition of post-election coalitions, as has been the case in the Republic of Ireland, and the system provides incentives for interparty accommodation through the reciprocal exchange of preferences between parties.” As there would be no more “parties” the previous quote could refer to ideologies rather than parties, per se.
To paraphrase one definition, insanity is to continue doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Well the status quo of a two-party system for the operation of our Congress has shown repeatedly that it just does not work. It would, therefore, be insanity to not make a change for a more practical structure for our law-making body. I realize that implementing the Single Transferable Vote system would take a Constitutional Amendment; and that, by definition would have to involve those who are part of the problem. Perhaps a national referendum could be proposed, circumventing the two parties.
Whatever the tools and methods required, it is vital for this country to undertake the dissolution of the Democratic and Republican Parties; and, further, to disallow the future creation of any political parties. If the STV is not put into place, then some other form of election that will prohibit the existence of two warring factions must be adopted. This country can no longer afford to have as its legislative members immature and petty, self-serving individuals.
REFERENCES
Abdul (2008, June 18). Democrats oppose American independence from foreign oil and defend their position with illogical spin and same old party talking points.
Hyscience. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/06/democrats_oppos.php
Beam, C. (2009, January 29). Partisan now, bipartisan later: The logic behind Republican opposition to Obama's stimulus package. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from http:// www.slate.com/id/2210082/
Grim, R. (2009, January 28). Stimulus package passes with zero Republican support. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com 2009/01/28/ obama-im-confident-stimul_n_161654.html
Kane, P. (2010, February 25). Washington rancor angers bipartisan-minded Pennsylvania town. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/24/AR2010022405161.html?referrer=emailarticle
Lueck, S., Paletta, D. & Hitt, G. (2008, September 30). Bailout plan rejected, markets plunge, forcing new scramble to solve crisis. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122270285663785991.html
Nichols, J. (2002. January 22). A bipartisan scandal. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/3/a_bipartisan_scandal
Zelizer, J. E. (2009, November 3). What happened to bipartisanship? Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/03/zelizer.not.fathers.bipartisanship/
Effectively Managing Interpersonal Conflict
Conflict is ever present. Especially in this modern, fast-paced world, we must all deal with conflicts of a sort both large and small. Some of these are in the workplace, yet many exist in our personal lives in interpersonal relationships. Because conflict is such a misunderstood concept, it is often feared and avoided, thus compounding strife in the relationship. However, there is encouraging news. With the correct approach and knowledge, interpersonal conflict can be managed effectively and satisfactorily.
Of the many steps to maneuver successfully through conflict, the first is to understand that it is not to be feared. As the Systems Process Theory of Conflict posits, “Conflict is necessary for the growth and adaptation of a system [i.e. an interpersonal relationship]” (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 147). A normal process which occurs in any social environment, it must be dealt with cognitively and with the use of the tools at one’s disposal. “Those who manage conflict well obtain efficient victories; those who fail to manage conflict well exhaust their resources and are eventually defeated” (Watson, 2007, ¶ 2).
Once conflict is accepted as a necessary component of life and relationships, the next step is to understand the process through which conflict proceeds. The five stages are, in order, prelude, trigger event, initiation, differentiation and resolution. In the prelude to conflict, certain factors exist which affect the inclination for a conflict to manifest itself. Personality traits and proclivities of the participants, such as temperament, attitudes, anticipation of conflict, defensiveness and competition are some of the contributors to conflict realization. Certain qualities of the relationship, such as the level of equality (or perceived equality), how each has handled conflict separately in the past and, most importantly, how the couple has handled past conflict also determine conflict potential. Both the physical and social environment in which they find themselves, as well as whether there are third parties involved who have influence on one or more of the participants will play a part in the future.
Additionally, one element that influences all phases of conflict management is the conflict climate. Whether or not there is a balance of power, a sense of trust and a supportive atmosphere will impact both the likelihood of conflict as well as how successfully the conflict is managed. For instance, in a hierarchal rather than egalitarian relationship, the dominant partner holds more power than the other does, and so has more control over the dynamics. “Power has been defined as an attempt to influence another person’s behavior to produce desired outcomes” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009, p. 46). If such is the case, the choices for determining whether or not to proceed with any future perceived conflict and how that conflict might be resolved are strongly affected.
The second phase of the process, the triggering event, is the catalyst for acknowledging a potential issue that requires attention. “Overt conflict usually occurs only periodically when people's contrary values or goals surface through a triggering event. The underlying issues lie dormant until something happens to trigger conflict behavior” (Milligan, n.d., p. 2). That “something” can include a rebuff, an illegitimate demand and criticism among others. Cumulative annoyance is a frequent trigger as it is a build-up from repeated, objectionable behavior.
This is an important stage as it is where one determines whether or not to engage in conflict. This is when a choice for conflict avoidance as strategy becomes a possibility. One may choose to ignore disagreeable behaviors as an alternative to what one sees as the greater of two evils – conflict. As previously noted, many individuals perceive conflict as a negative and sometimes fearful exercise. This may be caused by many factors such as an inclination to avoid any disharmonious pursuits; a low self-esteem, which assumes that one is unworthy to assert oneself; fear of an encounter with the other individual or a very unpleasant history with past conflicts.
As Michael E. Roloff and Danette E. Ifert contend, “Avoidance can serve useful purposes, as long as it eliminates arguing and does no damage to the relationship” (as cited in Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 166). Though avoidance can sometimes be warranted, overall it is not the healthy choice to make as it produces a “lose-lose” result. As one who has cause to initiate the management of a conflict and does not, this person loses in that damage to the relationship, not to mention to one’s self-esteem, must follow, and so both parties are harmed.
If this person, however, does indeed engage in dispute, the couple is said to be in the initiation stage. This is the ideal point to apply the S-TLC System as defined by authors D. D. Cahn and R. A. Abigail (2007, p. 41), which stands for Stop, Think, Listen and Communicate. The most important element, I believe, is the Stop portion of the process, which asks that one refrain from an emotional knee-jerk response to delving into a “clash” with the other individual. This is when one must remind himself that conflict is a healthy, natural process for the solution of personal issues and not to be taken as a personal attack of one’s ego. One must consider all the variables such as the nature of the other person, his or her importance, the importance to oneself of the potential resolution, what the real issues are and how best to approach them.
It is at the initiation stage, for instance, where one would plan a strategy for the conflict, such as accommodation. If the issue is not that important, and yet the happiness of the other person is, then one might decide to simply acquiesce. This is not a form of surrender, just a way to result in a win-win situation with a minimum amount of effort and turmoil. If, however, the motivation for accommodation is to avoid the perceived unpleasantness of confrontation, this is more or less a lose-win situation, which can cause future dissatisfaction and more intense conflict because of unresolved issues.
Now we are at the stage where the most important work is performed, the differentiation stage, or the stage at which we actually attempt to resolve the conflict. Again, important decisions must be made about our strategy. If we have little concern, trust and/or respect for the other, we might opt for a competitive style. “Competitive processes tend to yield the inverse, negative effects: obstructed communication, inability to coordinate activities, suspicion and a lack of self-confidence, desire to reduce the other's power and to dominate them” (Deutsch, 2000, ¶ 3). If we are only concerned about our own self-interests with no real interest in the other’s, we would go for the win-lose scenario that results from a competitive approach. Though we may have achieved a “win,” it is probably a short-lived one in the grand scheme of things, and not a producer of long-term satisfaction. This would be deemed a destructive approach.
It is generally believed that the most desirable strategies that should be employed are the constructive ones of compromise and collaboration, of which collaboration is truly the ideal because it produces a win-win result achieved through mutual respect and cooperation. A compromise generates a negotiated resolution which may still leave one or more parties dissatisfied with the outcome. “This strategy is generally used to achieve temporary solutions, to avoid destructive power struggles or when time pressures exist. One drawback is that partners can lose sight of important values and long-term objectives” (Hoban, n.d., ¶ 20). Therefore, collaboration is the preferred strategy.
If two people are to engage in a cooperative effort, they must do so with the appropriate behavior, which would be an assertive one. Assertiveness simply means that one is self-confident enough to be able express himself clearly and stand behind his beliefs and desires. It is not an aggressive posture which is more of a destructive, competitive approach; nor is it passive aggressive which entails duplicitous behavior to achieve “success” at the expense of the other. Invariably, this becomes a lose-lose proposition for no real solution to the problems has occurred, and questionable actions used to achieve the ends. Being assertive can be simplified to “behaving as an adult.” It is carrying on a nonabusive dialogue for the solution of a problem. “In fact, [Joseph P.] Folger and his colleagues refer to the collaboration approach as the ‘problem-solving orientation’” (as cited in Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 83).
Thus in a collaborative atmosphere, the participants attempt to employ their best communication skills to try to achieve mutual satisfaction. They must consider variables such as the other’s preferred conflict style/strategy, and so adapt accordingly. How have past conflicts progressed? This might also require some modification to tactics. Knowing the various theories of how conflict is played out could also require alteration in method. Taking into account the Psychodynamic Theory, for instance, based on Freud’s work with the subconscious, which posits that one could displace or misplace his vented up frustrations, one would need to consider that the issues being discussed may not be the true issues involved. One would have to delve deeper to discover what the true resentments of the other’s are.
Ideally, a solution will have been achieved, and we may move into the resolution stage in which we confirm that we have truly reached a mutually satisfying result for the dilemma – a genuine win-win scenario. It is important that there are no lingering resentments that might cause future flare-ups of the conflict; that would not be true resolution. A bonus of having achieved this resolution is that it reinforces for us the positive aspects of conflict.
And so, we have bearded the lion in his den; we have shown that with the proper knowledge, attitude and skills, we need not fear nor avoid this concept of conflict. By understanding it as a natural occurrence that can be successfully handled, we can build and improve upon all our present, and more importantly, future relationships.
References
Cahn, D. D. & Abigail, R. A. (2007). Managing conflict through communication. Boston: Pearson.
Deutsch, M. (2000). Cooperation and conflict. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bas Publishers, 2000, pp. 21-40.
Abstract retrieved from http://www.beyondintractability.org/articlesummary/10166/?nid=5732
Hoban, T. J. (n.d.). Managing conflict: A guide for watershed partnerships. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/kyw/brochures/manageconflict.html
Milligan, R. A. (n.d.). Understanding conflict. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from srdc.msstate.edu/resilient/newrescom/ellie/milligandocs/conflict.pdf
Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2009). Fundamentals of organizational communication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Watson, S. (2007, August 1). The inevitability of conflict. Security Magazine. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from http://www.securitymagazine.com/Articles/Feature_Article/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000144843
Of the many steps to maneuver successfully through conflict, the first is to understand that it is not to be feared. As the Systems Process Theory of Conflict posits, “Conflict is necessary for the growth and adaptation of a system [i.e. an interpersonal relationship]” (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 147). A normal process which occurs in any social environment, it must be dealt with cognitively and with the use of the tools at one’s disposal. “Those who manage conflict well obtain efficient victories; those who fail to manage conflict well exhaust their resources and are eventually defeated” (Watson, 2007, ¶ 2).
Once conflict is accepted as a necessary component of life and relationships, the next step is to understand the process through which conflict proceeds. The five stages are, in order, prelude, trigger event, initiation, differentiation and resolution. In the prelude to conflict, certain factors exist which affect the inclination for a conflict to manifest itself. Personality traits and proclivities of the participants, such as temperament, attitudes, anticipation of conflict, defensiveness and competition are some of the contributors to conflict realization. Certain qualities of the relationship, such as the level of equality (or perceived equality), how each has handled conflict separately in the past and, most importantly, how the couple has handled past conflict also determine conflict potential. Both the physical and social environment in which they find themselves, as well as whether there are third parties involved who have influence on one or more of the participants will play a part in the future.
Additionally, one element that influences all phases of conflict management is the conflict climate. Whether or not there is a balance of power, a sense of trust and a supportive atmosphere will impact both the likelihood of conflict as well as how successfully the conflict is managed. For instance, in a hierarchal rather than egalitarian relationship, the dominant partner holds more power than the other does, and so has more control over the dynamics. “Power has been defined as an attempt to influence another person’s behavior to produce desired outcomes” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009, p. 46). If such is the case, the choices for determining whether or not to proceed with any future perceived conflict and how that conflict might be resolved are strongly affected.
The second phase of the process, the triggering event, is the catalyst for acknowledging a potential issue that requires attention. “Overt conflict usually occurs only periodically when people's contrary values or goals surface through a triggering event. The underlying issues lie dormant until something happens to trigger conflict behavior” (Milligan, n.d., p. 2). That “something” can include a rebuff, an illegitimate demand and criticism among others. Cumulative annoyance is a frequent trigger as it is a build-up from repeated, objectionable behavior.
This is an important stage as it is where one determines whether or not to engage in conflict. This is when a choice for conflict avoidance as strategy becomes a possibility. One may choose to ignore disagreeable behaviors as an alternative to what one sees as the greater of two evils – conflict. As previously noted, many individuals perceive conflict as a negative and sometimes fearful exercise. This may be caused by many factors such as an inclination to avoid any disharmonious pursuits; a low self-esteem, which assumes that one is unworthy to assert oneself; fear of an encounter with the other individual or a very unpleasant history with past conflicts.
As Michael E. Roloff and Danette E. Ifert contend, “Avoidance can serve useful purposes, as long as it eliminates arguing and does no damage to the relationship” (as cited in Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 166). Though avoidance can sometimes be warranted, overall it is not the healthy choice to make as it produces a “lose-lose” result. As one who has cause to initiate the management of a conflict and does not, this person loses in that damage to the relationship, not to mention to one’s self-esteem, must follow, and so both parties are harmed.
If this person, however, does indeed engage in dispute, the couple is said to be in the initiation stage. This is the ideal point to apply the S-TLC System as defined by authors D. D. Cahn and R. A. Abigail (2007, p. 41), which stands for Stop, Think, Listen and Communicate. The most important element, I believe, is the Stop portion of the process, which asks that one refrain from an emotional knee-jerk response to delving into a “clash” with the other individual. This is when one must remind himself that conflict is a healthy, natural process for the solution of personal issues and not to be taken as a personal attack of one’s ego. One must consider all the variables such as the nature of the other person, his or her importance, the importance to oneself of the potential resolution, what the real issues are and how best to approach them.
It is at the initiation stage, for instance, where one would plan a strategy for the conflict, such as accommodation. If the issue is not that important, and yet the happiness of the other person is, then one might decide to simply acquiesce. This is not a form of surrender, just a way to result in a win-win situation with a minimum amount of effort and turmoil. If, however, the motivation for accommodation is to avoid the perceived unpleasantness of confrontation, this is more or less a lose-win situation, which can cause future dissatisfaction and more intense conflict because of unresolved issues.
Now we are at the stage where the most important work is performed, the differentiation stage, or the stage at which we actually attempt to resolve the conflict. Again, important decisions must be made about our strategy. If we have little concern, trust and/or respect for the other, we might opt for a competitive style. “Competitive processes tend to yield the inverse, negative effects: obstructed communication, inability to coordinate activities, suspicion and a lack of self-confidence, desire to reduce the other's power and to dominate them” (Deutsch, 2000, ¶ 3). If we are only concerned about our own self-interests with no real interest in the other’s, we would go for the win-lose scenario that results from a competitive approach. Though we may have achieved a “win,” it is probably a short-lived one in the grand scheme of things, and not a producer of long-term satisfaction. This would be deemed a destructive approach.
It is generally believed that the most desirable strategies that should be employed are the constructive ones of compromise and collaboration, of which collaboration is truly the ideal because it produces a win-win result achieved through mutual respect and cooperation. A compromise generates a negotiated resolution which may still leave one or more parties dissatisfied with the outcome. “This strategy is generally used to achieve temporary solutions, to avoid destructive power struggles or when time pressures exist. One drawback is that partners can lose sight of important values and long-term objectives” (Hoban, n.d., ¶ 20). Therefore, collaboration is the preferred strategy.
If two people are to engage in a cooperative effort, they must do so with the appropriate behavior, which would be an assertive one. Assertiveness simply means that one is self-confident enough to be able express himself clearly and stand behind his beliefs and desires. It is not an aggressive posture which is more of a destructive, competitive approach; nor is it passive aggressive which entails duplicitous behavior to achieve “success” at the expense of the other. Invariably, this becomes a lose-lose proposition for no real solution to the problems has occurred, and questionable actions used to achieve the ends. Being assertive can be simplified to “behaving as an adult.” It is carrying on a nonabusive dialogue for the solution of a problem. “In fact, [Joseph P.] Folger and his colleagues refer to the collaboration approach as the ‘problem-solving orientation’” (as cited in Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 83).
Thus in a collaborative atmosphere, the participants attempt to employ their best communication skills to try to achieve mutual satisfaction. They must consider variables such as the other’s preferred conflict style/strategy, and so adapt accordingly. How have past conflicts progressed? This might also require some modification to tactics. Knowing the various theories of how conflict is played out could also require alteration in method. Taking into account the Psychodynamic Theory, for instance, based on Freud’s work with the subconscious, which posits that one could displace or misplace his vented up frustrations, one would need to consider that the issues being discussed may not be the true issues involved. One would have to delve deeper to discover what the true resentments of the other’s are.
Ideally, a solution will have been achieved, and we may move into the resolution stage in which we confirm that we have truly reached a mutually satisfying result for the dilemma – a genuine win-win scenario. It is important that there are no lingering resentments that might cause future flare-ups of the conflict; that would not be true resolution. A bonus of having achieved this resolution is that it reinforces for us the positive aspects of conflict.
And so, we have bearded the lion in his den; we have shown that with the proper knowledge, attitude and skills, we need not fear nor avoid this concept of conflict. By understanding it as a natural occurrence that can be successfully handled, we can build and improve upon all our present, and more importantly, future relationships.
References
Cahn, D. D. & Abigail, R. A. (2007). Managing conflict through communication. Boston: Pearson.
Deutsch, M. (2000). Cooperation and conflict. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bas Publishers, 2000, pp. 21-40.
Abstract retrieved from http://www.beyondintractability.org/articlesummary/10166/?nid=5732
Hoban, T. J. (n.d.). Managing conflict: A guide for watershed partnerships. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/kyw/brochures/manageconflict.html
Milligan, R. A. (n.d.). Understanding conflict. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from srdc.msstate.edu/resilient/newrescom/ellie/milligandocs/conflict.pdf
Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2009). Fundamentals of organizational communication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Watson, S. (2007, August 1). The inevitability of conflict. Security Magazine. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from http://www.securitymagazine.com/Articles/Feature_Article/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000144843
Resolving Ethical Conflict: Is IMA’s Plan Adequate?
The Institute of Management Accountants (IMA), which describes itself as The Association for Accountants and Financial Professionals in Business, has set down a Code of Ethics to guide its members on a clear path of ethical behavior. As with many organizations, the IMA desires to both ensure that its members adhere to its overarching behavioral guidelines and to reassure the public, its potential clients, that it attaches importance to these moral precepts.
As a natural development, it has included a standard for the Resolution of Ethical Conflict, which is comprised of three alternatives. These three approaches, briefly, consist of 1) consulting someone in a superior position in the chain of command, 2) consulting an objective third party such as an IMA Ethics Counselor or 3) consulting an attorney if the situation appears so dire as to require a legal consult. Has IMA concocted the ideal principles for the resolution of an ethical conflict, or could it have produced a better plan? I believe that some of the methodology is valid, and yet some could be improved upon. Let us examine the three different alternatives.
More specifically, the first alternative states, “Discuss the issue with your immediate supervisor except when it appears that the supervisor is involved … submit the issue to the next management level” (http://www.imanet.org). If mid-level manager, Thomas, finds himself in an ethical dilemma, he, therefore, is to contact his supervisor requesting guidance on how to proceed regarding possibly unethical behavior by a co-worker.
This is a logical step. Rather than attempting to resolve the issue on his own, Thomas has an objective eye to render assistance. What if the perceived conflict has been misinterpreted, for instance, and does not in fact exist? The supervisor could assist with this discovery. Having access to the “bigger picture,” the supervisor could clarify the perceived discord.
If the issue does indeed merit scrutiny, the supervisor would have greater access to areas of the organization , as well as the authority to deal with it as this association obviously has a clear hierarchal chain of command created as a formal network. “The formal organization … prescribes who has the right to tell others what to do, who is to work together as a unit or team, and who has the final authority in disagreements” (Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. 2009). If the policy of this group is that employees respect the chain of command, so be it. Alternative number one does declare that, “Contact with levels above the immediate superior should be initiated only with your superior’s knowledge, assuming he or she is not involved.” So if the ethical situation involves one’s immediate superior, one is allowed to “leap-frog” to the next level for resolution of the matter.
The gist of this first directive is that ethical issues should first be shared with someone of higher authority. This has the added benefit of protecting the “reporter” from later being accused of complicity with the initiator.
The second directive states that one should, “Clarify relevant ethical issues by initiating a confidential discussion with an IMA Ethics Counselor or other impartial advisor to obtain a better understanding of possible courses of action.” It certainly is advisable in these circumstances to get a professional and objective view of the situation as long as the consult is indeed confidential. The only difficulty I have with this is what assurances our fictional Thomas has that these Ethics Counselors do not have an agenda. Are they motivated solely toward the ethical resolution of dilemmas for the theoretical, absolute “good”, or could they be said to be more concerned with heading off any potential problems for the company?
At the risk of sounding too cynical, the primary dictate for these counselors could be safeguarding the company’s reputation, with only a secondary one of aiding individual members with their issues. If these counselors have taken some solemn oath or passed certification by some central body (like a state or national Ethics Board), then I would withdraw my objection. If these counselors were truly a source of qualitative guidance, then this would indeed be a valuable source of direction.
Finally, the third directive advises, “Consult your own attorney as to legal obligations and rights concerning the ethical conflict.” I believe this to be more or less counsel that protects the company from any legal culpability after the fact. By giving this advice, they have fulfilled their obligation of providing objective guidance.
Overall, the IMA has offered some sound direction for the dealing with a potential ethical conflict, such as misuse of insider information, for example. The first instruction is to inform a superior in the organization that you have encountered a situation which may cause clients to be affected unfairly, and which could also reflect poorly upon the organization. Listed as the first option, it is assumed that this is the primary action that should be taken. I can certainly agree that requesting that an ordered hierarchy be followed is a reasonable one. With a relatively simple issue, it is advisable not to air the company’s dirty laundry publicly. There is, after all, a responsibility to one’s co-workers not to jeopardize their positions unnecessarily.
However, nowhere in IMA’s guidelines do we encounter when it is appropriate to inform the client of a potential problem. It is, after all, their rights with which we are concerned. Why is there no specific instruction for keeping the client in the loop? The National Association of Social Workers has included this consideration in its Code of Ethics. There it states, “Social workers should inform clients when a real or potential conflict of interest arises and take reasonable steps to resolve the issue in a manner that makes the clients’ interests primary and protects clients’ interests to the greatest extent possible” (http://www.naswdc.org).
The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) also has more specific courses of action when encountering such a dilemma. “Journalists should: Disclose unavoidable conflicts … Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Admit mistakes and correct them promptly” (http://www.spj.org). The SPJ is very specific about how to deal with unethical practices discovered within their ranks: “Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.” Therefore, there is no wiggle room here. The SPJ says that if an unethical situation reveals itself, it must be exposed and dealt with. This too is a valid way to go about handling the conflict; however, I still feel that requesting that the proper channels be followed initially, as the IMA does, is a legitimate request.
Many states, like Louisiana, Washington and Wisconsin have Ethics Boards monitoring the actions of their state legislators and employees. A final recommendation I would make is for states to establish an Ethics Board available to businesses for just such cases. There would then be no question but that these counselors would be completely objective, with no hidden agendas. Our fictional Thomas could then contact this board and make a simple preliminary query to ascertain whether or not he has a legitimate conflict of an ethical nature. If so, an appointment in person or by phone could be made with an ethics counselor to discuss the issues in detail, and determine what steps he should then take.
Whatever modifications it might adopt, IMA has created a very simplistic set of directives which I believe should be managed as guidelines rather than a credo that must be closely adhered to. It has, to its credit, taken the more important step of establishing a Code of Ethics and a direction for resolving conflicts of an ethical nature, which certainly causes its members to be aware of the importance of ethics in the workplace.
References
Code of ethics. Society of Professional Journalists. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Code of ethics of the national association of social workers: Approved by the 1996 NASW delegate assembly and revised by the 2008 delegate assembly. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp
Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2009). Fundamental of organizational communication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values. Boston: Pearson Education.
Statement of professional ethical practice. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from http://www.imanet.org/about_ethics_statement.asp
As a natural development, it has included a standard for the Resolution of Ethical Conflict, which is comprised of three alternatives. These three approaches, briefly, consist of 1) consulting someone in a superior position in the chain of command, 2) consulting an objective third party such as an IMA Ethics Counselor or 3) consulting an attorney if the situation appears so dire as to require a legal consult. Has IMA concocted the ideal principles for the resolution of an ethical conflict, or could it have produced a better plan? I believe that some of the methodology is valid, and yet some could be improved upon. Let us examine the three different alternatives.
More specifically, the first alternative states, “Discuss the issue with your immediate supervisor except when it appears that the supervisor is involved … submit the issue to the next management level” (http://www.imanet.org). If mid-level manager, Thomas, finds himself in an ethical dilemma, he, therefore, is to contact his supervisor requesting guidance on how to proceed regarding possibly unethical behavior by a co-worker.
This is a logical step. Rather than attempting to resolve the issue on his own, Thomas has an objective eye to render assistance. What if the perceived conflict has been misinterpreted, for instance, and does not in fact exist? The supervisor could assist with this discovery. Having access to the “bigger picture,” the supervisor could clarify the perceived discord.
If the issue does indeed merit scrutiny, the supervisor would have greater access to areas of the organization , as well as the authority to deal with it as this association obviously has a clear hierarchal chain of command created as a formal network. “The formal organization … prescribes who has the right to tell others what to do, who is to work together as a unit or team, and who has the final authority in disagreements” (Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. 2009). If the policy of this group is that employees respect the chain of command, so be it. Alternative number one does declare that, “Contact with levels above the immediate superior should be initiated only with your superior’s knowledge, assuming he or she is not involved.” So if the ethical situation involves one’s immediate superior, one is allowed to “leap-frog” to the next level for resolution of the matter.
The gist of this first directive is that ethical issues should first be shared with someone of higher authority. This has the added benefit of protecting the “reporter” from later being accused of complicity with the initiator.
The second directive states that one should, “Clarify relevant ethical issues by initiating a confidential discussion with an IMA Ethics Counselor or other impartial advisor to obtain a better understanding of possible courses of action.” It certainly is advisable in these circumstances to get a professional and objective view of the situation as long as the consult is indeed confidential. The only difficulty I have with this is what assurances our fictional Thomas has that these Ethics Counselors do not have an agenda. Are they motivated solely toward the ethical resolution of dilemmas for the theoretical, absolute “good”, or could they be said to be more concerned with heading off any potential problems for the company?
At the risk of sounding too cynical, the primary dictate for these counselors could be safeguarding the company’s reputation, with only a secondary one of aiding individual members with their issues. If these counselors have taken some solemn oath or passed certification by some central body (like a state or national Ethics Board), then I would withdraw my objection. If these counselors were truly a source of qualitative guidance, then this would indeed be a valuable source of direction.
Finally, the third directive advises, “Consult your own attorney as to legal obligations and rights concerning the ethical conflict.” I believe this to be more or less counsel that protects the company from any legal culpability after the fact. By giving this advice, they have fulfilled their obligation of providing objective guidance.
Overall, the IMA has offered some sound direction for the dealing with a potential ethical conflict, such as misuse of insider information, for example. The first instruction is to inform a superior in the organization that you have encountered a situation which may cause clients to be affected unfairly, and which could also reflect poorly upon the organization. Listed as the first option, it is assumed that this is the primary action that should be taken. I can certainly agree that requesting that an ordered hierarchy be followed is a reasonable one. With a relatively simple issue, it is advisable not to air the company’s dirty laundry publicly. There is, after all, a responsibility to one’s co-workers not to jeopardize their positions unnecessarily.
However, nowhere in IMA’s guidelines do we encounter when it is appropriate to inform the client of a potential problem. It is, after all, their rights with which we are concerned. Why is there no specific instruction for keeping the client in the loop? The National Association of Social Workers has included this consideration in its Code of Ethics. There it states, “Social workers should inform clients when a real or potential conflict of interest arises and take reasonable steps to resolve the issue in a manner that makes the clients’ interests primary and protects clients’ interests to the greatest extent possible” (http://www.naswdc.org).
The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) also has more specific courses of action when encountering such a dilemma. “Journalists should: Disclose unavoidable conflicts … Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Admit mistakes and correct them promptly” (http://www.spj.org). The SPJ is very specific about how to deal with unethical practices discovered within their ranks: “Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.” Therefore, there is no wiggle room here. The SPJ says that if an unethical situation reveals itself, it must be exposed and dealt with. This too is a valid way to go about handling the conflict; however, I still feel that requesting that the proper channels be followed initially, as the IMA does, is a legitimate request.
Many states, like Louisiana, Washington and Wisconsin have Ethics Boards monitoring the actions of their state legislators and employees. A final recommendation I would make is for states to establish an Ethics Board available to businesses for just such cases. There would then be no question but that these counselors would be completely objective, with no hidden agendas. Our fictional Thomas could then contact this board and make a simple preliminary query to ascertain whether or not he has a legitimate conflict of an ethical nature. If so, an appointment in person or by phone could be made with an ethics counselor to discuss the issues in detail, and determine what steps he should then take.
Whatever modifications it might adopt, IMA has created a very simplistic set of directives which I believe should be managed as guidelines rather than a credo that must be closely adhered to. It has, to its credit, taken the more important step of establishing a Code of Ethics and a direction for resolving conflicts of an ethical nature, which certainly causes its members to be aware of the importance of ethics in the workplace.
References
Code of ethics. Society of Professional Journalists. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Code of ethics of the national association of social workers: Approved by the 1996 NASW delegate assembly and revised by the 2008 delegate assembly. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp
Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2009). Fundamental of organizational communication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values. Boston: Pearson Education.
Statement of professional ethical practice. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from http://www.imanet.org/about_ethics_statement.asp
A New Understanding of Conflict
“Knowledge is Power” – so they say. If one, for example, had the exceptionally valuable comprehension for carrying out the ideal process for an important act, that person would be terribly powerful indeed. Tragically, through most of my life, I have been less than mighty in this most important societal act, communication – and more specifically that very significant subset, conflict resolution. Well that was then, and this is now. I have recently acquired some extremely valuable and detailed erudition for the resolution of interpersonal conflict, and now find myself to be a Superman in the field! Well, how about a Better-than-average-man in the field?!
Interpersonal conflict has always been a misunderstood and shunned activity, when, in fact, it should be viewed as a promising opportunity to improve communication and strengthen relationships. For many years, I have practiced poor habits in this process, and have paid the price for it. As people are wont to do, I perceived conflict as a sign that something was broken and needed tending. It was going to be an unpleasant task, and there would be much work involved. Therefore, my courageous choice was to turn and walk away from the relationship, rather than put in all that hard work. This is not a choice to proud of, but that was this young (at the time) man’s selection.
Now I know that conflict is a natural occurrence that must be dealt with on some level on a more or less constant basis. “The inevitability of conflict is made manifest in every field of human endeavor. Nations strive with nations. Workers strive with employers. Parents strive with children. Children strive with siblings” (Watson, 2007, ¶ 6). As authors Cahn and Abigail (2007, p. 3) express, interpersonal conflict is one whose participants are interdependent and who find an incompatibility in their goals, which could adversely affect the relationship. There is also a sense of urgency involved because of the importance of this interdependency.
One must also understand that there are different kinds of interpersonal strife. Conflicts can be deemed false, or unreal, for instance, if one of the participant’s perceptions of the situation are faulty. That person could believe there is an issue at hand, when in reality there is not, and discovers this upon finally broaching the subject with the other person. Perception, as in all communication scenarios, can play a very pivotal role but especially in the area of conflicts. A flawed perception can cause a domino effect, which results in terrible complications down the road. It is for this reason that success in communication and in conflicts relies upon being self-aware and constantly self-monitoring.
Other dangerous unreal conflicts are those which are misplaced (central issue being argued is not the real issue at all), and displaced (in lieu of dealing with the person with whom there is an issue, one attacks another, safer, individual). These are both unfair to the other person. In the misplaced scenario, one is being purposely dishonest in avoiding the true issue and causing unnecessary unpleasantness for the other without cause. Even more objectionable, in the displaced dispute, one is taking out frustration and resentment toward another on one’s partner. This is a breach of trust in the relationship.
In improving my outlook on conflict, understanding the various theories of how and why humans behave in conflict situations the way they do has helped me see the reasons behind the choices they make. Three of the major intrapersonal theories, Psychodynamic, Attribution and Uncertainty focus on the methods for how people function. Two of the relationship theories, Social Exchange and Systems, each explain the mechanisms for interacting in conflicts.
Based on Freud’s work concerning the subconscious mind, the Psychodynamic Theory (PD) deals with impulses, needs, wants and fears deeply rooted in an individual. The frustrations and unfulfilled impulses can cause disruptive behavior in the individual sometimes manifesting in displaced conflict, for instance. Undesirable behavior is a result of the fact that humans are, at their core, emotional beings who do not always have control over these feelings; and this behavior can extend out, drawing those we care for into its negative consequences. Stress, anger and anxiety can be catalysts for the negative effects covered under PD.
Attribution Theory (AT) posits that participants make ongoing speculations about why and how the other person is behaving in the conflict. Therefore people often carry on the discourse anticipating how the other person will behave, and attributing motives to their behavior. I think it is a very dangerous way to interact with someone who is important to us, because this of itself can create many misconceptions and prejudices. Many misunderstandings and convoluted paths can manifest themselves because of negative and erroneous assumptions we make about the other person.
Uncertainty Theory (UT) expresses the uncertainties that exist within individuals, as well as those that exist within the relationship, and consequently within an ensuing conflict. As stated earlier, perception plays such an important part in conflicts and may be a cause of the uncertainty. “People may not share the same perception about the issue or may not agree on the conflict issue at all” (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 142). This uncertainty can be compounded with the stresses found in the Psychodynamic Theory to produce quite a powder keg of dynamic anger and hostility.
A result of the work by John W. Thibault and Harold H. Kelley, “The Communication Theory of Social Exchange is a theory based on the exchange of rewards and costs … People strive to minimize costs and maximize rewards and then base the likeliness of developing a relationship with someone on the perceived possible outcomes”
(Honors: Communication Capstone, 2001,¶ 1). Participants in conflict weigh the advantages and disadvantages to resolving the conflict based solely on their own point of view. As cutthroat an approach as this seems, I do believe that it accurately describes how people carry out decisions on whether or not to resolve conflict. People do extrapolate from the relationship’s history to predict where it is going, and whether it is worth the effort to salvage.
Lastly, the Systems point of view is that conflict does not occur as isolated instances, but as an ongoing part of a process which improves itself by adapting to change. The relationship itself has a purpose in this scheme and that is to thrive, improve and adapt. In this viewpoint, of course, conflict could not be viewed as negative, but as a necessary vehicle for the stimulation of this process.
Now that I understand the various points of view for explaining how humans behave, and how the relationships they have function, I have learned that I must consider the optimal way in which to behave in these conflicts – I must plan my strategy. Knowing that conflict is not the terrible and emotionally overwrought experience I once thought it would be, but a situation that simply needs to be analyzed, interpreted and resolved intelligently and with planning, I can proceed to plot out the best approach. A strategy is that approach.
Most experts in communication agree that there are five primary strategies for the resolution of conflict – avoidance, accommodation, competition, compromise and collaboration. Behaviorally, avoidance and accommodation are considered nonassertive tactics and are the least effective for long-term satisfaction of resolution. Resolution is actually a misnomer as nothing is really resolved in these two strategies. One may choose to ignore objectionable behavior by avoiding confrontation as an alternative to what one sees as the greater of two evils – conflict. As Michael E. Roloff and Danette E. Ifert contend, “Avoidance can serve useful purposes, as long as it eliminates arguing and does no damage to the relationship” (as cited in Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 166). Though avoidance can sometimes be warranted, overall it is not the healthy choice to make as it produces a “lose-lose” result. As one who has cause to initiate the management of a conflict and does not, this person loses in that there is damage to the relationship, not to mention to one’s self-esteem, and so both parties are harmed.
One might choose accommodation and simply acquiesce if the issue is not that important, and yet the happiness of the other person is. This is not a form of surrender, just a way to result in a win-win situation with a minimum amount of effort and turmoil. If, however, the motivation for accommodation is to avoid the perceived unpleasantness of confrontation, this is more or less a lose-win situation, which can cause future dissatisfaction and more intense conflict because of unresolved issues. As Toronto-based psychotherapist Lori Dennis points out, “You don't get heard and you aren't speaking the truth … It's a short-term, Band-Aid solution that isn't satisfying or meaningful in the long run” (as cited by Sponagle, M., 2009, ¶ 4).
If we have little concern, trust and/or respect for the other, we might opt for a competitive style. “Competitive processes tend to yield the inverse, negative effects: obstructed communication, inability to coordinate activities, suspicion and a lack of self-confidence, desire to reduce the other's power and to dominate them” (Deutsch, 2000, ¶ 3). If we are only concerned about our own self-interests with no real interest in the other’s, we would go for the win-lose scenario that results from a competitive approach. Though we may have achieved a “win,” it is probably a short-lived one in the grand scheme of things, and not a producer of long-term satisfaction. This would be deemed aggressive behavior and a destructive approach.
It is generally believed that the most desirable strategies that should be employed are the constructive ones of compromise and collaboration, of which collaboration is truly the ideal because it produces a win-win result achieved through mutual respect and cooperation. A compromise generates a negotiated resolution, which may still leave one or more parties dissatisfied with the outcome. “This strategy is generally used to achieve temporary solutions, to avoid destructive power struggles or when time pressures exist. One drawback is that partners can lose sight of important values and long-term objectives” (Hoban, n.d., ¶ 20). Therefore, collaboration is the preferred strategy.
If two people are to engage in a cooperative effort, they must do so with the appropriate behavior, which would be an assertive one. Assertiveness simply means that one is self-confident enough to be able express himself clearly and stand behind his beliefs and desires. It is not an aggressive posture which is more of a destructive, competitive approach; nor is it passive aggressive which entails duplicitous behavior to achieve “success” at the expense of the other. Invariably, this becomes a lose-lose proposition for no real solution to the problems has occurred, and questionable actions used to achieve the ends. Being assertive is carrying on a nonabusive dialogue for the solution of a problem. “In fact, [Joseph P.] Folger and his colleagues refer to the collaboration approach as the ‘problem-solving orientation’” (as cited in Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 83).
This then, is the key to solving an interpersonal dilemma – working efficiently, objectively and unemotionally toward a mutually satisfactory goal. It is looking at the issues from the other’s perspective as well as one’s own. It is removing ego from the equation. It is brainstorming and learning healthy negotiating skills. What is true in successful conflict resolution in organizations is also true in interpersonal relationships. “Further, learning to use constructive conflict strategies builds team cohesiveness by clarifying and resolving issues within the team and builds trust” (Hartman & Crume, 2007, p.1).
One excellent technique for organizing issues, illuminating one’s perspective and truly recognizing the relevant elements is mind mapping, developed by Tony Buzan. This line of attack is a method for visualizing all the components of a problem and for seeing the relationships of those components. “[Mind mapping] is especially useful in creative thinking, speech preparation, speech presentation, note taking, strategic planning, decision making, problem solving and training at all levels” (Buzan, Executive Excellence, 1991). Considered a “right-brain” approach to problem solving, it entails making a list of all the issues and graphically exhibiting the connections that link the different elements. This tool allows one to identify the real issues at play and to prioritize those that need to be dealt with.
Another superior method is that introduced by D.D. Cahn and R.A. Abigail in Managing Conflict Through Communication (2007). Their methodology is to approach conflict, not with emotions, but with a clear, organized plan. They have presented their S-TLC system, an acronym for its three parts, Stop, Think, Listen and Communicate. A very fundamental approach, it advises that when one is first confronted with conflict, he immediately refrains from a reflexive emotional response; thinks about the issues he is about to dissect, as well as the qualities of the person with whom he will be in a dialogue and the best way to engage him; listens closely to what the other is saying, including any unspoken subtext; and then communicates in a clear, logical fashion with the aim of resolving the problem to each’s satisfaction.
As Cahn and Abigail express, true listening is a key element. Often in a conflict dialogue, we are preparing in our mind what to say next, rather than truly “listening” to what is being said. Here is where our knowledge of our propensity to predict what the other will say and why through Attribution Theory, should help us to stop these prejudgments and truly listen and interpret the core message. When we are prepared to respond with the best possible communication tactic, we could also keep in mind that the Psychodynamic Theory might be at work, and the other person is actually expressing misplaced or even displaced conflict. This would require further probing to unearth the true issue.
In understanding the structure of conflict, it is helpful to recognize the five stages in which it occurs - prelude, trigger event, initiation, differentiation and resolution. In the prelude to conflict, certain factors exist which affect the inclination for a conflict to manifest itself. The second phase of the process, the triggering event, is the catalyst for acknowledging a potential issue that requires attention. It is at the initiation stage that both parties acknowledge that an important dilemma has arisen which requires their concerted attention. It is here that we enter the stage where the most important work is performed, the differentiation stage. This is where all the analysis, evaluation and planning are applied for the successful collaboration regarding the issue at hand. Finally, and ideally, a solution will have been achieved, and we may move into the resolution stage in which we confirm that we have truly reached a mutually satisfying result for the dilemma – a genuine win-win scenario.
These are the concepts I have been fortunate enough to have been exposed to of late, and which I am hoping to apply to future interpersonal conflicts. This comes at an opportune time as I am currently attempting to make a major career change. The future for me is very uncertain at this point. Whether or not an employer will take a chance on a mid-50’s prospect with no real, or at least recent, experience remains to be seen. Even the exact field into which I shall attempt to infiltrate is unknown.
Needless to say, therefore, not only am I currently in a state of prolonged stress, but I shall probably be so for a considerable amount of time when I have attained a position. Stress and anger can be one’s enemy, and so I must monitor myself in my new job to ensure that I do not allow these negative feelings to manifest in an unfortunate fashion. Stress is often the result of the perception that the demands surpass one’s ability (or time). A helpful technique I have learned for this situation is to monitor and modify my self-talk, which is the self-perception I reinforce with the way I think about myself and view stimuli.
I can only hope that this new work environment will provide a supportive climate so that I can make a successful transition. I must not allow myself to let defensiveness enter my persona because of resentment of my lack of power in the work hierarchy, or for the fact that my “superiors” are half my age. This is where preemptive intellectualizing can prevent any misconceptions or negative spiraling anxieties that create conflict situations.
For above all, this is what I have learned. One must think! One must not allow emotions to be in the driver’s seat on a regular basis. Social circumstances must be examined and one must have a tangible plan for effectively maneuvering through them. Conflicts are indeed a natural occurrence in any social environment; and must be seen as opportunities for enhancing relationships. If approached properly, their resolution can become a very satisfying, fulfilling accomplishment.
No, I am not the Superman of communication and of conflict. I am, however, surely stronger, more confident and measurably capable. I can make a conscious and informed decision in how I deal with any disagreement or misunderstanding I encounter on an interpersonal basis.
References
Buzan, T. (1991, August). Mind mapping. Executive Excellence. Vol. 8, Iss. 8; pg. 3. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=393355&sid= 2&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Cahn, D. D. & Abigail, R. A. (2007). Managing conflict through communication. Boston: Pearson.
Deutsch, M. (2000). Cooperation and conflict. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bas Publishers, 2000, pp. 21-40. Abstract retrieved from http://www.beyondintractability.org/articlesummary/10166/?nid=5732
Hoban, T. J. (n.d.). Managing conflict: A guide for watershed partnerships. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/kyw/brochures/manageconflict.html
Hartman, R. L. & Crume, A.L. (2007. Public forum mediation: a training exercise
for conflict facilitation skills. Industrial and Commercial Training. Vol. 39, No. 3. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did= 1343646601& SrchMode=1&sid=9&Fmt= 6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS= 1272688344&clientId=74379
Honors: Communication capstone spring 2001 workbook. (2001). Social exchange theory.
Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/interpersonal/socexch.html
Sponagle, M. (2009, October). The art of the hissy fit. Flare. Vol. 31, Iss. 10; p. 110. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1885607161&sid= 2&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Watson, S. (2007, August 1). The inevitability of conflict. Security Magazine. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from http://www.securitymagazine.com/Articles/Feature_Article/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000144843
Interpersonal conflict has always been a misunderstood and shunned activity, when, in fact, it should be viewed as a promising opportunity to improve communication and strengthen relationships. For many years, I have practiced poor habits in this process, and have paid the price for it. As people are wont to do, I perceived conflict as a sign that something was broken and needed tending. It was going to be an unpleasant task, and there would be much work involved. Therefore, my courageous choice was to turn and walk away from the relationship, rather than put in all that hard work. This is not a choice to proud of, but that was this young (at the time) man’s selection.
Now I know that conflict is a natural occurrence that must be dealt with on some level on a more or less constant basis. “The inevitability of conflict is made manifest in every field of human endeavor. Nations strive with nations. Workers strive with employers. Parents strive with children. Children strive with siblings” (Watson, 2007, ¶ 6). As authors Cahn and Abigail (2007, p. 3) express, interpersonal conflict is one whose participants are interdependent and who find an incompatibility in their goals, which could adversely affect the relationship. There is also a sense of urgency involved because of the importance of this interdependency.
One must also understand that there are different kinds of interpersonal strife. Conflicts can be deemed false, or unreal, for instance, if one of the participant’s perceptions of the situation are faulty. That person could believe there is an issue at hand, when in reality there is not, and discovers this upon finally broaching the subject with the other person. Perception, as in all communication scenarios, can play a very pivotal role but especially in the area of conflicts. A flawed perception can cause a domino effect, which results in terrible complications down the road. It is for this reason that success in communication and in conflicts relies upon being self-aware and constantly self-monitoring.
Other dangerous unreal conflicts are those which are misplaced (central issue being argued is not the real issue at all), and displaced (in lieu of dealing with the person with whom there is an issue, one attacks another, safer, individual). These are both unfair to the other person. In the misplaced scenario, one is being purposely dishonest in avoiding the true issue and causing unnecessary unpleasantness for the other without cause. Even more objectionable, in the displaced dispute, one is taking out frustration and resentment toward another on one’s partner. This is a breach of trust in the relationship.
In improving my outlook on conflict, understanding the various theories of how and why humans behave in conflict situations the way they do has helped me see the reasons behind the choices they make. Three of the major intrapersonal theories, Psychodynamic, Attribution and Uncertainty focus on the methods for how people function. Two of the relationship theories, Social Exchange and Systems, each explain the mechanisms for interacting in conflicts.
Based on Freud’s work concerning the subconscious mind, the Psychodynamic Theory (PD) deals with impulses, needs, wants and fears deeply rooted in an individual. The frustrations and unfulfilled impulses can cause disruptive behavior in the individual sometimes manifesting in displaced conflict, for instance. Undesirable behavior is a result of the fact that humans are, at their core, emotional beings who do not always have control over these feelings; and this behavior can extend out, drawing those we care for into its negative consequences. Stress, anger and anxiety can be catalysts for the negative effects covered under PD.
Attribution Theory (AT) posits that participants make ongoing speculations about why and how the other person is behaving in the conflict. Therefore people often carry on the discourse anticipating how the other person will behave, and attributing motives to their behavior. I think it is a very dangerous way to interact with someone who is important to us, because this of itself can create many misconceptions and prejudices. Many misunderstandings and convoluted paths can manifest themselves because of negative and erroneous assumptions we make about the other person.
Uncertainty Theory (UT) expresses the uncertainties that exist within individuals, as well as those that exist within the relationship, and consequently within an ensuing conflict. As stated earlier, perception plays such an important part in conflicts and may be a cause of the uncertainty. “People may not share the same perception about the issue or may not agree on the conflict issue at all” (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 142). This uncertainty can be compounded with the stresses found in the Psychodynamic Theory to produce quite a powder keg of dynamic anger and hostility.
A result of the work by John W. Thibault and Harold H. Kelley, “The Communication Theory of Social Exchange is a theory based on the exchange of rewards and costs … People strive to minimize costs and maximize rewards and then base the likeliness of developing a relationship with someone on the perceived possible outcomes”
(Honors: Communication Capstone, 2001,¶ 1). Participants in conflict weigh the advantages and disadvantages to resolving the conflict based solely on their own point of view. As cutthroat an approach as this seems, I do believe that it accurately describes how people carry out decisions on whether or not to resolve conflict. People do extrapolate from the relationship’s history to predict where it is going, and whether it is worth the effort to salvage.
Lastly, the Systems point of view is that conflict does not occur as isolated instances, but as an ongoing part of a process which improves itself by adapting to change. The relationship itself has a purpose in this scheme and that is to thrive, improve and adapt. In this viewpoint, of course, conflict could not be viewed as negative, but as a necessary vehicle for the stimulation of this process.
Now that I understand the various points of view for explaining how humans behave, and how the relationships they have function, I have learned that I must consider the optimal way in which to behave in these conflicts – I must plan my strategy. Knowing that conflict is not the terrible and emotionally overwrought experience I once thought it would be, but a situation that simply needs to be analyzed, interpreted and resolved intelligently and with planning, I can proceed to plot out the best approach. A strategy is that approach.
Most experts in communication agree that there are five primary strategies for the resolution of conflict – avoidance, accommodation, competition, compromise and collaboration. Behaviorally, avoidance and accommodation are considered nonassertive tactics and are the least effective for long-term satisfaction of resolution. Resolution is actually a misnomer as nothing is really resolved in these two strategies. One may choose to ignore objectionable behavior by avoiding confrontation as an alternative to what one sees as the greater of two evils – conflict. As Michael E. Roloff and Danette E. Ifert contend, “Avoidance can serve useful purposes, as long as it eliminates arguing and does no damage to the relationship” (as cited in Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 166). Though avoidance can sometimes be warranted, overall it is not the healthy choice to make as it produces a “lose-lose” result. As one who has cause to initiate the management of a conflict and does not, this person loses in that there is damage to the relationship, not to mention to one’s self-esteem, and so both parties are harmed.
One might choose accommodation and simply acquiesce if the issue is not that important, and yet the happiness of the other person is. This is not a form of surrender, just a way to result in a win-win situation with a minimum amount of effort and turmoil. If, however, the motivation for accommodation is to avoid the perceived unpleasantness of confrontation, this is more or less a lose-win situation, which can cause future dissatisfaction and more intense conflict because of unresolved issues. As Toronto-based psychotherapist Lori Dennis points out, “You don't get heard and you aren't speaking the truth … It's a short-term, Band-Aid solution that isn't satisfying or meaningful in the long run” (as cited by Sponagle, M., 2009, ¶ 4).
If we have little concern, trust and/or respect for the other, we might opt for a competitive style. “Competitive processes tend to yield the inverse, negative effects: obstructed communication, inability to coordinate activities, suspicion and a lack of self-confidence, desire to reduce the other's power and to dominate them” (Deutsch, 2000, ¶ 3). If we are only concerned about our own self-interests with no real interest in the other’s, we would go for the win-lose scenario that results from a competitive approach. Though we may have achieved a “win,” it is probably a short-lived one in the grand scheme of things, and not a producer of long-term satisfaction. This would be deemed aggressive behavior and a destructive approach.
It is generally believed that the most desirable strategies that should be employed are the constructive ones of compromise and collaboration, of which collaboration is truly the ideal because it produces a win-win result achieved through mutual respect and cooperation. A compromise generates a negotiated resolution, which may still leave one or more parties dissatisfied with the outcome. “This strategy is generally used to achieve temporary solutions, to avoid destructive power struggles or when time pressures exist. One drawback is that partners can lose sight of important values and long-term objectives” (Hoban, n.d., ¶ 20). Therefore, collaboration is the preferred strategy.
If two people are to engage in a cooperative effort, they must do so with the appropriate behavior, which would be an assertive one. Assertiveness simply means that one is self-confident enough to be able express himself clearly and stand behind his beliefs and desires. It is not an aggressive posture which is more of a destructive, competitive approach; nor is it passive aggressive which entails duplicitous behavior to achieve “success” at the expense of the other. Invariably, this becomes a lose-lose proposition for no real solution to the problems has occurred, and questionable actions used to achieve the ends. Being assertive is carrying on a nonabusive dialogue for the solution of a problem. “In fact, [Joseph P.] Folger and his colleagues refer to the collaboration approach as the ‘problem-solving orientation’” (as cited in Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 83).
This then, is the key to solving an interpersonal dilemma – working efficiently, objectively and unemotionally toward a mutually satisfactory goal. It is looking at the issues from the other’s perspective as well as one’s own. It is removing ego from the equation. It is brainstorming and learning healthy negotiating skills. What is true in successful conflict resolution in organizations is also true in interpersonal relationships. “Further, learning to use constructive conflict strategies builds team cohesiveness by clarifying and resolving issues within the team and builds trust” (Hartman & Crume, 2007, p.1).
One excellent technique for organizing issues, illuminating one’s perspective and truly recognizing the relevant elements is mind mapping, developed by Tony Buzan. This line of attack is a method for visualizing all the components of a problem and for seeing the relationships of those components. “[Mind mapping] is especially useful in creative thinking, speech preparation, speech presentation, note taking, strategic planning, decision making, problem solving and training at all levels” (Buzan, Executive Excellence, 1991). Considered a “right-brain” approach to problem solving, it entails making a list of all the issues and graphically exhibiting the connections that link the different elements. This tool allows one to identify the real issues at play and to prioritize those that need to be dealt with.
Another superior method is that introduced by D.D. Cahn and R.A. Abigail in Managing Conflict Through Communication (2007). Their methodology is to approach conflict, not with emotions, but with a clear, organized plan. They have presented their S-TLC system, an acronym for its three parts, Stop, Think, Listen and Communicate. A very fundamental approach, it advises that when one is first confronted with conflict, he immediately refrains from a reflexive emotional response; thinks about the issues he is about to dissect, as well as the qualities of the person with whom he will be in a dialogue and the best way to engage him; listens closely to what the other is saying, including any unspoken subtext; and then communicates in a clear, logical fashion with the aim of resolving the problem to each’s satisfaction.
As Cahn and Abigail express, true listening is a key element. Often in a conflict dialogue, we are preparing in our mind what to say next, rather than truly “listening” to what is being said. Here is where our knowledge of our propensity to predict what the other will say and why through Attribution Theory, should help us to stop these prejudgments and truly listen and interpret the core message. When we are prepared to respond with the best possible communication tactic, we could also keep in mind that the Psychodynamic Theory might be at work, and the other person is actually expressing misplaced or even displaced conflict. This would require further probing to unearth the true issue.
In understanding the structure of conflict, it is helpful to recognize the five stages in which it occurs - prelude, trigger event, initiation, differentiation and resolution. In the prelude to conflict, certain factors exist which affect the inclination for a conflict to manifest itself. The second phase of the process, the triggering event, is the catalyst for acknowledging a potential issue that requires attention. It is at the initiation stage that both parties acknowledge that an important dilemma has arisen which requires their concerted attention. It is here that we enter the stage where the most important work is performed, the differentiation stage. This is where all the analysis, evaluation and planning are applied for the successful collaboration regarding the issue at hand. Finally, and ideally, a solution will have been achieved, and we may move into the resolution stage in which we confirm that we have truly reached a mutually satisfying result for the dilemma – a genuine win-win scenario.
These are the concepts I have been fortunate enough to have been exposed to of late, and which I am hoping to apply to future interpersonal conflicts. This comes at an opportune time as I am currently attempting to make a major career change. The future for me is very uncertain at this point. Whether or not an employer will take a chance on a mid-50’s prospect with no real, or at least recent, experience remains to be seen. Even the exact field into which I shall attempt to infiltrate is unknown.
Needless to say, therefore, not only am I currently in a state of prolonged stress, but I shall probably be so for a considerable amount of time when I have attained a position. Stress and anger can be one’s enemy, and so I must monitor myself in my new job to ensure that I do not allow these negative feelings to manifest in an unfortunate fashion. Stress is often the result of the perception that the demands surpass one’s ability (or time). A helpful technique I have learned for this situation is to monitor and modify my self-talk, which is the self-perception I reinforce with the way I think about myself and view stimuli.
I can only hope that this new work environment will provide a supportive climate so that I can make a successful transition. I must not allow myself to let defensiveness enter my persona because of resentment of my lack of power in the work hierarchy, or for the fact that my “superiors” are half my age. This is where preemptive intellectualizing can prevent any misconceptions or negative spiraling anxieties that create conflict situations.
For above all, this is what I have learned. One must think! One must not allow emotions to be in the driver’s seat on a regular basis. Social circumstances must be examined and one must have a tangible plan for effectively maneuvering through them. Conflicts are indeed a natural occurrence in any social environment; and must be seen as opportunities for enhancing relationships. If approached properly, their resolution can become a very satisfying, fulfilling accomplishment.
No, I am not the Superman of communication and of conflict. I am, however, surely stronger, more confident and measurably capable. I can make a conscious and informed decision in how I deal with any disagreement or misunderstanding I encounter on an interpersonal basis.
References
Buzan, T. (1991, August). Mind mapping. Executive Excellence. Vol. 8, Iss. 8; pg. 3. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=393355&sid= 2&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Cahn, D. D. & Abigail, R. A. (2007). Managing conflict through communication. Boston: Pearson.
Deutsch, M. (2000). Cooperation and conflict. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bas Publishers, 2000, pp. 21-40. Abstract retrieved from http://www.beyondintractability.org/articlesummary/10166/?nid=5732
Hoban, T. J. (n.d.). Managing conflict: A guide for watershed partnerships. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/kyw/brochures/manageconflict.html
Hartman, R. L. & Crume, A.L. (2007. Public forum mediation: a training exercise
for conflict facilitation skills. Industrial and Commercial Training. Vol. 39, No. 3. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did= 1343646601& SrchMode=1&sid=9&Fmt= 6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS= 1272688344&clientId=74379
Honors: Communication capstone spring 2001 workbook. (2001). Social exchange theory.
Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/interpersonal/socexch.html
Sponagle, M. (2009, October). The art of the hissy fit. Flare. Vol. 31, Iss. 10; p. 110. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1885607161&sid= 2&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Watson, S. (2007, August 1). The inevitability of conflict. Security Magazine. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from http://www.securitymagazine.com/Articles/Feature_Article/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000144843
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)