Jan & Ken: Managing Conflict in Relationships Essay

Q 1 Using the chapters on language and emotions to help haoma your answer, extract two slipway that passel could open this conversation more than productively, beyond clearly expressing his emotions and victimisation I language. lot could save employ language that promotes cooperation and mutual respect. Jan, weve been friends for a long time and Id like to discuss a situation ahead it interferes with our kinship. or Jan, in that locations a problem in our friendship that we need to address. By aiming for the win-win approach he sens begin the conversation in a violate phase of mind (Wood, 2013, P242). Also, by striving to take to each one person into construeation, Jan would have seen two parties equally and not felt she had to match herself so abruptly. Therefore, honoring both partners and the relationship would have benefitted the opening argument (Wood, 2013, P.242).Q 2 How do you perceive Jans effort to convince mass to clear her? Based on what you have le arned in this chapter, suggest two ways she might more effectively seek Kens forgiveness.I see Jan being able to convince Ken that her spirits be sincere by low gear being committed to everyones satisfaction and applying the win-win approach (Wood, 2013, P. 230). Im sorry Ken, what can I do to fix this? Secondly, by using a softer tone and better voice response (Wood, 2013, P.232). Had she combined the two at the time she replied to Ken, she would have been more effective. Oh Ken, I did not realize what I was doing would end up hurting you, I never meant to hurt you Can you ever forgive me?Q 3 What ar two gestural cues use by Jan. What argon two non literal cues apply by Ken? In what ways did the nonverbal cues used by both Ken and Jan impact the message? What are the verbal messages used by each? What, contradictions occurred between the nonverbal cues and the verbal message and how did the contradictions impact the interaction?Both Ken and Jan used body language and incre ase/decrease of volume as nonverbal cues (Wood, 2013, P. 121). Jan bobbed her head, appointed her fingers toward him and when she was frustrated and defensive she raised her voice. Ken emphasized each point by the sudden stop of hand gestures and in at least(prenominal) two separate instances, lowered his voice with frustration. These gestures are considered Kinesics (Wood, 2013, P. 126). By using these specific cues both Ken and Jan were setting the tone of the infringe and cause it to reflect disadvantageously (Wood, 2013, P. 232). Ken used a psychological wall plug response (Wood, 2013, P. 231) as a verbal message when he stated, by chance neither one of us can trust the other, maybe we shouldnt tell each other anything And he implied she couldnt be bank further. Jans most obvious verbal message implied her friendship with Shannon was as important as her relationship with Ken by giving a passive, loyalty response that involved both friends (Woods, 2013, P. 232). These ver bal messages Ken and Jan used contradicted the original intention, which was how they both cared close to the other within the relationship. It caused both of them to send away from each other in a defensive frame of mind that not only defeated the purpose but too had a devastating effect on the relationship.Q 4 Reviewing the nonverbal and verbal cues identified in the last question, what are the roles that these play in the date? Do these cues return to a more positive discovercome or negative? How can nonverbal and verbal cues be used to lead to a more productive conflict resolution?Perception and indication (Wood, 2013, P. 76) played the most important role during this conflict because it engaged both parties to successfully use non-effective communication. The cues played the role of kitchen-sinking, unproductive conflict communication, shopinterruptions, cross complaining, disconfirmation of each other (Wood, 2013, P. 204-206), and nonverbal metacommunication (Wood, 201 3, P. 27, 233). Ken used them in his unsuccessful attempt to emphasize the seriousness of the situation, whereas Jan utilized them with her defensive auditory modality (Wood, 2013, P. 155). This created a negative outcome.Cues are a symbolic perception of how we are interpreted whether it be verbal or non verbal. Therefore, our intention must first be focused on creating a good outcome and consider effective communication by engaging in dual view and monitor the communication (Wood, 2013, P. 31-33) to become productive and resolve any conflict. Secondly, uncompress Dont be so tense and intense about the situation, it comes across as the chilling effect (Wood, 2013, P. 178) and causes an unwanted reaction. Show that you are emotionally involved within the conflict by effectively expressing your emotions (Wood, 2013, P. 180-181) and oppose sensitively when others communicate their emotions (Wood, 2013, P. 186-187). Show grace part engaged in the conflict (Wood, 2013, P. 243).Q 5 The conversation seems to be framed in a win-lose penchant to conflict. Each person wants to be right, and to win at the get down of the other. How can Jan and Ken move their conflict discussion into a win-win orientation?They should focus on a healthy conflict that involves all leash parties Ken, Jan and the relationship (Wood, 2013, P. 241). Honoring all three within the conflict confirms and regards the intention (Wood, 2013, P. 242). They should show grace in the nonverbal form (Wood, 2013, P. 243). This will supply both Ken and Jan to relax and become more open toward the conflict and achieve a good outcome.Q 6 Review the eight conflict-management skills discussed in the text. Identify three examples of these skills in the confabulation between Jan and Ken.Its my fellow feeling that Jan tried to take responsibility for her thoughts, feelings and the issue at hand (Wood, 2013, P. 239) by the response, Im sorry. I didnt mean to tell her, it sightly kind of slippedout (Cen gage Learning, Jan and Ken). In using this statement she also looked for a way to preserve the others face because she had accepted his point of the agreement (Wood, 2013, P. 240). Ken, while focused on the content level of meaning, intended to attend to the relationship level of meaning (Wood, 2013, P. 238) by these statements, Jan, we need to talk. and I thought I could trust you and tell you anything. (Cengage Learning, Jan and Ken). Q 7 Identify three places in the dialogue where Jan and Ken missed opportunities to manage conflict successfully. Give specific suggestions (supported by the text material) on how the conflict management strategies could have been incorporated to meliorate the interaction.Ken began with, Jan, we need to talk. Why did you tell Shannon about what happened between Katie and me? (Cengage Learning, Jan and Ken). He could have approached her with, Jan, can we talk? I feel as if I have been betrayed by your actions and I dont want it to fail our frien dship. This way he would be applying grace and sincerity toward the relationship (Wood, 2013, P. 243).By reacting to emotionally loaded language (Wood, 2013, P. 151) Jan callously stated, Ken, I told her that long before the two of you started dating. (Cengage Learning, Jan and Ken). She should have replied, I confided in Shannon because we have also been friends for a long time and I thought I could trust her as well. By admitting to him that she had trusted Shannon and confided in her it would show Ken that her decision reflected badly on her and that it really wasnt intentionally to go against him.Jan retaliated with, Yeah? want the time I told you I was thinking about dropping out of school for one semester and you just happened to tell my dad? (Cengage Learning, Jan and Ken). Had Jan applied busy listening (Wood, 2013, P. 160-161), she would have realized that this conversation was about Ken and how he felt betrayed. She could have replied, I am truly sorry Ken, can you ever forgive me?ReferencesCengage Learning. (Producer). (2011). Jan and Ken Web Video. Retrieved from http//alturl.com/522qq Wood, J. T. (2013). Interpersonal communication, everyday encounters. (7th ed.). Wadsworth/Cengage.