Monday, April 30, 2007
Help!
Ok so... final projects due this week! I'm having trouble coming up with my demands for a solution to our issue. I am a white police officer that is accusing my black partner of a hate crime because I was shot while she left my side (really she was just repositioning). I dont know how I what I should demand be done about the situation, obviously it will not be the actual resolution to this issue because I am wrongly accusing her, I just need some kind of stance. Should I demand she's fired? Or suspended? Should I demand compensation from her? If anyone has any ideas please throw them my way. Thank you!! (and hopefully this makes sense to those of you not in my group)
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Chapters 9-11
Well Chapter 9 was probably my favorite, by far. It was the easiest for me to comprehend because, like I said previously, I'm a psychology major, and it spoke a language I understand. I liked how conflict was broken down into particular stages: escalation, stalemate and lastly de-escalation (if they can go beyond stalemate). Escalation, itself, has "three dynamics", selective perception, self-fulfilling prophecies, and entrapment.
I personally like discussing self-fulfilling prophecies because I think it is something each of us does in everyday life. It is when you have a belief or even prejudice about someone or something and therefore when you look at they're actions you only observe that which supports your beliefs. Then you react to just those actions and they become what ever it was that you "thought" they were thus, supporting your original hypothesis. I like the saying "If you look for the bad, you will always find it." I think the same is true for the reverse. I think most don’t even realize that they are being prejudice and that it affecting the actual outcome of particular situations.
Chapter 10 discussed a woman's place at the negotiation table and how they approach and handle conflict in a different way, due to psychological differences between males and females. I believe that a blend of these differences is actually effective. Most women would rather talk than "fight" about an issue, and even then, as the book points out, they talk "differently" than men do. I think that a mix is definitely necessary. I found the analysis of women very interesting and right on target as well.
I liked the information provided in chapter 11; the statistics on effective negotiators, and the difference aspects of effective and ineffective aggressive and cooperative negotiators, in particular. I like how the “personalities” were broken down in to objectives, traits and their approach to the same situation. And it also illustrated they’re possible weaknesses as well. I agree that one needs to master both styles in order to adapt according to the situation and the style of the competitor.
I personally like discussing self-fulfilling prophecies because I think it is something each of us does in everyday life. It is when you have a belief or even prejudice about someone or something and therefore when you look at they're actions you only observe that which supports your beliefs. Then you react to just those actions and they become what ever it was that you "thought" they were thus, supporting your original hypothesis. I like the saying "If you look for the bad, you will always find it." I think the same is true for the reverse. I think most don’t even realize that they are being prejudice and that it affecting the actual outcome of particular situations.
Chapter 10 discussed a woman's place at the negotiation table and how they approach and handle conflict in a different way, due to psychological differences between males and females. I believe that a blend of these differences is actually effective. Most women would rather talk than "fight" about an issue, and even then, as the book points out, they talk "differently" than men do. I think that a mix is definitely necessary. I found the analysis of women very interesting and right on target as well.
I liked the information provided in chapter 11; the statistics on effective negotiators, and the difference aspects of effective and ineffective aggressive and cooperative negotiators, in particular. I like how the “personalities” were broken down in to objectives, traits and their approach to the same situation. And it also illustrated they’re possible weaknesses as well. I agree that one needs to master both styles in order to adapt according to the situation and the style of the competitor.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
My Lovely Group
I just got off the phone with my group of fantastic ladies. (minus 1 due to technical difficulties) We have chatted on the class site a few times and have accomplished a lot. We decided to shake things up a bit and do a test run on our conference call (which is how we are presenting). I feel that it was much easier and straightforward than the chat because everyone could take turns speaking and presenting problems that needed to be addressed. In the chat sometimes things were over looked and not answered.
I feel much better now that we’ve actually spoken to each other. I think that we are all on the same page with our assignment which makes matters much easier. All of our views and ideas seem to coincide. I believe we all understand what is expected of us and want to make sure that we give more than just the bare minimum. We each contribute our thoughts and everyone is able to offer feedback. I feel that the communication between all of us is strong. I know if someone doesn’t understand something they have no problem asking for clarification, which helps with the over all process.
I believe that each person in our team is very dedicated to our project and wants to be as helpful as possible. I know in the beginning some of us, including myself, were a little shy, so Myrna led us (thank goodness). I think that now we all feel much more comfortable with ourselves as well as the project and are more willing to voice our opinions and concerns. Myrna finished her portion rather quickly and set a great example for us. Lynnette gave us a new option of presenting via phone conference, thankfully, since none of us had any clue about ilinc. And I, along with Lidia, have set up the basis of the storyline for our conflict. And Brenda is working diligently on our power point. I do not think there is any one leader as of now, just a team aiming toward success together.
I feel much better now that we’ve actually spoken to each other. I think that we are all on the same page with our assignment which makes matters much easier. All of our views and ideas seem to coincide. I believe we all understand what is expected of us and want to make sure that we give more than just the bare minimum. We each contribute our thoughts and everyone is able to offer feedback. I feel that the communication between all of us is strong. I know if someone doesn’t understand something they have no problem asking for clarification, which helps with the over all process.
I believe that each person in our team is very dedicated to our project and wants to be as helpful as possible. I know in the beginning some of us, including myself, were a little shy, so Myrna led us (thank goodness). I think that now we all feel much more comfortable with ourselves as well as the project and are more willing to voice our opinions and concerns. Myrna finished her portion rather quickly and set a great example for us. Lynnette gave us a new option of presenting via phone conference, thankfully, since none of us had any clue about ilinc. And I, along with Lidia, have set up the basis of the storyline for our conflict. And Brenda is working diligently on our power point. I do not think there is any one leader as of now, just a team aiming toward success together.
Reading...
I just have to say that I'm really enjoying this week's reading assignment. It is a lot easier for me to understand this type of analytical explanation; I had some trouble with the past chapters. This is probably due to the fact that it’s more up my alley with the psychological approach (see as I'm a psyc. major) and the others I had no real basis for. Well I better get back to it.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Phone Assignment Week 3
Lidia and I were partners this week, she was the employee and I was her manager in the child care department of the YMCA. The evaluation process at the YMCA is a two part process. The first, in the spring, is to set up the goals of the term and what is expected of them. The second, in the fall, is to evaluate the employee’s performance in order to establish pay raise.
Lidia came to be because she only received a 3% pay raise and was expecting 5%. She expressed to me that she feels she did not receive a high enough raise based the work she accomplish. She explained that she wrote all lesson plans, would stay late and increased enrollment to reach capacity.
After hearing her state her case, I explained that due to budget I gave her as much as possible because, after all, there were other employees that needed raises as well. She explained that she felt she did the majority of the work and that the raises should not be equal. I told her that I was unable to discuss other’s raises with her but assured her that the raises are based on merit. I also told her that I was glad she brought this to my attention and that I do not want her to feel underappreciated. I wanted to make it perfectly clear that we felt she was an asset to us and that we valued all her hard work.
I said that I was unable to make the decision myself so I would talk to my supervisor about the issue to see if something could be done about an increase while staying in budget. However, I wanted to make sure that she understood that although I will ask for 5% that it may not be possible but I will make sure we increase it. We agreed to meet on Friday to discuss the outcome.
Lidia came to be because she only received a 3% pay raise and was expecting 5%. She expressed to me that she feels she did not receive a high enough raise based the work she accomplish. She explained that she wrote all lesson plans, would stay late and increased enrollment to reach capacity.
After hearing her state her case, I explained that due to budget I gave her as much as possible because, after all, there were other employees that needed raises as well. She explained that she felt she did the majority of the work and that the raises should not be equal. I told her that I was unable to discuss other’s raises with her but assured her that the raises are based on merit. I also told her that I was glad she brought this to my attention and that I do not want her to feel underappreciated. I wanted to make it perfectly clear that we felt she was an asset to us and that we valued all her hard work.
I said that I was unable to make the decision myself so I would talk to my supervisor about the issue to see if something could be done about an increase while staying in budget. However, I wanted to make sure that she understood that although I will ask for 5% that it may not be possible but I will make sure we increase it. We agreed to meet on Friday to discuss the outcome.
My Speech
Well I finished my major portion of the final project last night, and I couldn’t be more relieved. I know that the majority of my group could not accomplish their portions without mine completed first. It's nice not to have that hanging over my head anymore :)
I am in group E where the conflict is between a white officer, who was shot, and a black officer who is being accused of a hate crime for "leaving" her partner. Our group concluded that she was actually just repositioning, but never the less we have to present the other side of the case. We are doing a role play in order to present and I am the white officer. I had to think of all the reasons why she would conclude that her partner left her intentionally due to discrimination.
Surprisingly enough, I was able to come up with numerous "past" issues between the two partners in order to substantiate her claims. I must admit, my husband helped me a great deal with these points. He is an MP for the Marine Corp. so I figured I might as well get appropriate guidance on the assignment. All in all I feel that I was able to write a good speech for the project. I just hope it was what my group was expecting because I know I could have gone in many different directions with this situation.
I am in group E where the conflict is between a white officer, who was shot, and a black officer who is being accused of a hate crime for "leaving" her partner. Our group concluded that she was actually just repositioning, but never the less we have to present the other side of the case. We are doing a role play in order to present and I am the white officer. I had to think of all the reasons why she would conclude that her partner left her intentionally due to discrimination.
Surprisingly enough, I was able to come up with numerous "past" issues between the two partners in order to substantiate her claims. I must admit, my husband helped me a great deal with these points. He is an MP for the Marine Corp. so I figured I might as well get appropriate guidance on the assignment. All in all I feel that I was able to write a good speech for the project. I just hope it was what my group was expecting because I know I could have gone in many different directions with this situation.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Phone Assignment Week 2
I had a very enjoyable conversation with Maria this week. I contacted Maria, my Human Resources manager, with a very serious problem I was facing with an employee in which I was supervising.
The employee, who is African-American, is accusing me of discriminating against him. He is claiming that I, being a white female in a management position, am not giving him the same respect, responsibility and bonuses as the other employees I manage because I am racist. Although he is, in fact, the only African-American employee, the reality is that he is not performing as well as the rest of the group. He does not contribute as much to projects and is consistently late to work. When I approached him about these issues is when he claimed that I was discriminating. I explained that I base my observations on the quality of the employee regardless of color.
My concern was how I should go about resolving the matter before he went to someone else making such allegations. I am worried about upholding my character as well as maintaining a healthy work environment for all my employees.
Maria explained that the matter should be dealt with immediately because avoiding it could cause a larger problem and would seem like I was not willing to handle the situation appropriately. We agreed that there should definitely be someone else present when he and I are to discuss this due to the seriousness of the accusations brought against me. I stated that I would want an outside party such as Maria or another HR manager and not anyone from my department involved.
Maria suggested that I offer him as many options as possible in order to resolve the matter. First, to explain my perspective and state that my concerns are with his job performance, that he is not complying with his job duties and it is not race related. Offer to have weekly evaluations of his performance and keep a log of all employee progress. She also suggested that I reinforce his positive aspects instead of strictly focusing on the negative. Next, I should tell him that if he still feels discriminated against, he is more than welcome to file a formal complaint and that I will cooperate with a full investigation of the matter. And lastly, if he wishes to move to another department or under another manager, that I will not hold any personal vendetta against him. I am to express that I want what is best for my employees and to create a healthy work environment for each of them.
I am also to ask him exactly why he feels this way so that we can address each situation directly. It may just be a matter of misunderstanding and miscommunication.
I feel that we were able to come up with numerous solutions to such a sensitive issue. Maria and I were able to work together to come to these resolutions by asking questions and attempting to explore all possible avenues.
Thank you Maria! I feel we accomplished a great deal!
The employee, who is African-American, is accusing me of discriminating against him. He is claiming that I, being a white female in a management position, am not giving him the same respect, responsibility and bonuses as the other employees I manage because I am racist. Although he is, in fact, the only African-American employee, the reality is that he is not performing as well as the rest of the group. He does not contribute as much to projects and is consistently late to work. When I approached him about these issues is when he claimed that I was discriminating. I explained that I base my observations on the quality of the employee regardless of color.
My concern was how I should go about resolving the matter before he went to someone else making such allegations. I am worried about upholding my character as well as maintaining a healthy work environment for all my employees.
Maria explained that the matter should be dealt with immediately because avoiding it could cause a larger problem and would seem like I was not willing to handle the situation appropriately. We agreed that there should definitely be someone else present when he and I are to discuss this due to the seriousness of the accusations brought against me. I stated that I would want an outside party such as Maria or another HR manager and not anyone from my department involved.
Maria suggested that I offer him as many options as possible in order to resolve the matter. First, to explain my perspective and state that my concerns are with his job performance, that he is not complying with his job duties and it is not race related. Offer to have weekly evaluations of his performance and keep a log of all employee progress. She also suggested that I reinforce his positive aspects instead of strictly focusing on the negative. Next, I should tell him that if he still feels discriminated against, he is more than welcome to file a formal complaint and that I will cooperate with a full investigation of the matter. And lastly, if he wishes to move to another department or under another manager, that I will not hold any personal vendetta against him. I am to express that I want what is best for my employees and to create a healthy work environment for each of them.
I am also to ask him exactly why he feels this way so that we can address each situation directly. It may just be a matter of misunderstanding and miscommunication.
I feel that we were able to come up with numerous solutions to such a sensitive issue. Maria and I were able to work together to come to these resolutions by asking questions and attempting to explore all possible avenues.
Thank you Maria! I feel we accomplished a great deal!
Friday, April 20, 2007
In Response to Group Presentation
I feel the same way, but like you, I am working with a great group of women! We are doing something similar. We are each taking on a role and will create a short presentation on our individual parts, and blend them together for our final presentation. I hope this helps. Best of luck!
Lynnette
Lynnette
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Group Project
Just got done chatting with my lovely group of ladies! I feel that we at least got the ball rolling and that I'm not totally in the dark about what is expected of us. Does anyone know how to use ilinc (we're all newbies and need help!)? How is everyone else doing their projects? I guess we are role playing and initially each of us will state our case and then proceed to establish a resolution... should be interesting! I'd like to hear everyone's thought and maybe get more ideas from you all. Thanks!
Erin Brockovich
First of all, let me just say that I absolutely adored this movie and the character Erin. It was my first time seeing it and I enjoyed it a great deal.
This was a fantastic movie for a conflict resolution class due to the fact that there was a tremendous about of conflict on all levels. Erin faced conflict in every aspect of her life: career, family, and love life. In the beginning of the movie, Erin was in a car accident which was no fault of her own. She suffered a neck injury in which surgery was necessary and she fell into a large amount of debt because she was not insured. Unfortunately, the resolution to this was not fair or just at all. When she sued the man who hit her for damages, who just so happened to be a doctor, they lawyer claimed that Erin was desperate for money at the time and set up the accident some how. He also questioned her character by stating that she had been divorced twice and had no job. Erin was unable to contain herself and, therefore, the jury did not award her damages. This shows that communication, as well as interpersonal barriers, are a very realistic part of the negotiation, or persuading, process. I believe that is one scenario that could have been handled using an alternative dispute resolution. In doing so, the doctor would not be taken advantage of just because he was wealthy and Erin would not have to pay outrageous medical bills because of someone else’s irresponsible actions. It would create a more balanced alternative instead of the doctor getting away with everything. But I suppose that would only work if the doctor would think that the jury would award Erin an amount he was unwilling to pay.
The next major issue was that Erin did not have a job in order to support her family of three children. She search with no avail, and decided that the lawyer who let her down in the previous case, owed it to her. This was a great example of problem solving and negotiation skills. She was able to talk her way into a job. More like she demanded it and wouldn’t take no for an answer, but she did what she needed to do to support her children. Although she got the job the lawyer, Ed, refused to offer her benefits. So, he was also part of the negotiation and not just letting Erin run the show.
Another great example of barriers was that Ed tried to communicate to Erin that she probably wasn’t popular with the rest of the staff because of the way she dressed. In other word the other employees had an interpersonal barrier due to the way she presented herself. Unfortunately, Erin does not listen to Ed and is unable to grasp this concept. Also due to her appearance, Erin is fired while doing research because Ed thought she was “out having fun” instead of working.
Erin is able to negotiate her way back into working to Ed after he goes through her research. She demands a raise and benefits if Ed wants to know any more information. She states that, if he does not offer that, she has other options (BATNA- Best Alternative to a Negotiation Agreement). Erin is a very determined person and in my eyes a good negotiator.
The main conflict in this movie starts off as a real estate dispute but turns out to be much more. Through diligent research Erin finds that PG&E is using a harmful chemical in their plant called Chromium 6. This chemical has gotten into the water supply and is causing numerous diseases and cancers nearly all of the population of the little town. To make matters worse the company claims that it is Chromium 3 which is very beneficial to your health. Erin has to convince the people that they are sick due to the chemical and not unrelated issues which a doctor paid by PG&E claims. She definitely has to use good communication skills and get the people of the town to trust her in order to move forward with a suit. PG&E comes back with an offer of a very minimal amount to buy a house and completely ignoring the other issues entirely, stating that they are unrelated illnesses. The company’s lawyer states that it is their final offer and that Ed and Erin don’t know who they are up against. This shows that the company thinks that they’re resources give them all the power in this negotiation. Little did they know who they were up against. After many months of diligent efforts and Erin’s continuing research they find a link from the plant to the headquarters in San Francisco which proves they covered up the issue. All the plaintiffs were awarded $330 million dollars, $5 million of that going to one family in particular.
I think this was a excellent example of negotiation and communication skills to resolve problems as well as showing the barriers to effective communication. I believe all of the conflicts were realistic and that many people are able to relate to them.
This was a fantastic movie for a conflict resolution class due to the fact that there was a tremendous about of conflict on all levels. Erin faced conflict in every aspect of her life: career, family, and love life. In the beginning of the movie, Erin was in a car accident which was no fault of her own. She suffered a neck injury in which surgery was necessary and she fell into a large amount of debt because she was not insured. Unfortunately, the resolution to this was not fair or just at all. When she sued the man who hit her for damages, who just so happened to be a doctor, they lawyer claimed that Erin was desperate for money at the time and set up the accident some how. He also questioned her character by stating that she had been divorced twice and had no job. Erin was unable to contain herself and, therefore, the jury did not award her damages. This shows that communication, as well as interpersonal barriers, are a very realistic part of the negotiation, or persuading, process. I believe that is one scenario that could have been handled using an alternative dispute resolution. In doing so, the doctor would not be taken advantage of just because he was wealthy and Erin would not have to pay outrageous medical bills because of someone else’s irresponsible actions. It would create a more balanced alternative instead of the doctor getting away with everything. But I suppose that would only work if the doctor would think that the jury would award Erin an amount he was unwilling to pay.
The next major issue was that Erin did not have a job in order to support her family of three children. She search with no avail, and decided that the lawyer who let her down in the previous case, owed it to her. This was a great example of problem solving and negotiation skills. She was able to talk her way into a job. More like she demanded it and wouldn’t take no for an answer, but she did what she needed to do to support her children. Although she got the job the lawyer, Ed, refused to offer her benefits. So, he was also part of the negotiation and not just letting Erin run the show.
Another great example of barriers was that Ed tried to communicate to Erin that she probably wasn’t popular with the rest of the staff because of the way she dressed. In other word the other employees had an interpersonal barrier due to the way she presented herself. Unfortunately, Erin does not listen to Ed and is unable to grasp this concept. Also due to her appearance, Erin is fired while doing research because Ed thought she was “out having fun” instead of working.
Erin is able to negotiate her way back into working to Ed after he goes through her research. She demands a raise and benefits if Ed wants to know any more information. She states that, if he does not offer that, she has other options (BATNA- Best Alternative to a Negotiation Agreement). Erin is a very determined person and in my eyes a good negotiator.
The main conflict in this movie starts off as a real estate dispute but turns out to be much more. Through diligent research Erin finds that PG&E is using a harmful chemical in their plant called Chromium 6. This chemical has gotten into the water supply and is causing numerous diseases and cancers nearly all of the population of the little town. To make matters worse the company claims that it is Chromium 3 which is very beneficial to your health. Erin has to convince the people that they are sick due to the chemical and not unrelated issues which a doctor paid by PG&E claims. She definitely has to use good communication skills and get the people of the town to trust her in order to move forward with a suit. PG&E comes back with an offer of a very minimal amount to buy a house and completely ignoring the other issues entirely, stating that they are unrelated illnesses. The company’s lawyer states that it is their final offer and that Ed and Erin don’t know who they are up against. This shows that the company thinks that they’re resources give them all the power in this negotiation. Little did they know who they were up against. After many months of diligent efforts and Erin’s continuing research they find a link from the plant to the headquarters in San Francisco which proves they covered up the issue. All the plaintiffs were awarded $330 million dollars, $5 million of that going to one family in particular.
I think this was a excellent example of negotiation and communication skills to resolve problems as well as showing the barriers to effective communication. I believe all of the conflicts were realistic and that many people are able to relate to them.
Grades?
Has anyone been graded for last weeks blogs yet? Because I haven't. If so how is everyone doing?
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Chapters 4 & 5
As much as I feel like some of the information is a bit over my head, I do have a better understanding of alternative dispute resolutions and the means of solving public disputes. I was amazed at how clearly the dispute pyramid displayed the different levels and how it still can be used on a wide array of issues. Its interesting how even the most complex of situations can be broken down into a very simple structure of events.
I also learned the difference between mediation and adjudication. Both involve a third party; however, the first is where the two parties come to their own resolution with the help of a third party, while the latter imposes a resolution on the parties, telling them how it should be handled. In other words, the first, mediation, is used as a means of better communication in resolving the issue, while the other, adjudication, has someone else make the decision (like a judge).
In Chapter 5 I learned that it is possible, and also very beneficial, to incorporate alternative dispute resolutions within the court system. It seems to save a lot of time, makes plans that all parties can “live with” and gives fair solutions to problems rather than having a judge rule who is “right”. Or even worse, continue to go in a judicial circle with no resolution at all. The alternative dispute resolutions also seem to keep all parties dedicated to the agreements, most likely due to the fact that all issues were addressed. I agree with the idea of creating a state office of mediation. I think it will only benefit our current system.
I also learned the difference between mediation and adjudication. Both involve a third party; however, the first is where the two parties come to their own resolution with the help of a third party, while the latter imposes a resolution on the parties, telling them how it should be handled. In other words, the first, mediation, is used as a means of better communication in resolving the issue, while the other, adjudication, has someone else make the decision (like a judge).
In Chapter 5 I learned that it is possible, and also very beneficial, to incorporate alternative dispute resolutions within the court system. It seems to save a lot of time, makes plans that all parties can “live with” and gives fair solutions to problems rather than having a judge rule who is “right”. Or even worse, continue to go in a judicial circle with no resolution at all. The alternative dispute resolutions also seem to keep all parties dedicated to the agreements, most likely due to the fact that all issues were addressed. I agree with the idea of creating a state office of mediation. I think it will only benefit our current system.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Emotional Intelligence
Snapshot Report
Self-report ComponentSubscale IQ score = 111
Subscale percentile = 79
111
According to your self-report answers, your emotional intelligence is average. People who score like you do feel that their ability to understand and deal with their own emotions and those of others is acceptable but could still use some improvement. Emotionally intelligent people have an easy time overcoming difficulties in their lives and they are generally able to control their moods. It’s easy for them to motivate themselves to overcome obstacles and reach their goals. In addition, they find social interactions to be quite easy and fulfilling, for several reasons. They are comfortable allowing themselves to get close with others, and feel comfortable being vulnerable enough to establish intimacy. They also report having an easy time offering support to others; likely due to an empathetic nature and a clear mind when it comes to offering good advice. Perhaps by working on your problem areas, you can become more confident in dealing with your own emotions and those of others.
I’m not extremely surprised with these results how ever I had hoped to score a bit higher. As it states, I am very comfortable in dealing with emotions, whether they’re my own or of another. I can see that I have improved a great deal over the past few years with being able to deal with hardships and controlling my moods. Before, I would have nervous breakdowns and could not contain myself what so ever, even if it was a small crisis. But, it just goes to show that there is always room for improvement. I’m not sure if I always allow myself to be vulnerable in order to create intimacy with someone else. It may take a great deal of effort on the other person’s part for me to let my guard down. But, overall, I think the results are accurate.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Phone Call Assignment Week 1
I believe the conversation that I had with Brenda seemed to flow very naturally once we were able to start the assignment. We had a bit of a miscommunication when I first called but once we sorted it out everything went smoothly. She was very easy to talk to and open about her problem so that I was able to fully understand.
I feel that we definitely worked together as a team during our conversation. We both asked questions to better understand the problems as well as offered resolutions. One challenge was that neither of us had been in the other’s position, so we were not speaking from experience. However, I think we both had some good points on our issues and it helped to look at them with fresh eyes. My problem was concerning child support and hers was about fulfilling a student’s needs after they had been denied by her supervisor.
I personally had some barriers to communication, but I’m not sure about Brenda. I have a six month old daughter and although my mother was watching her during the phone call I could hear her crying in the other room. I tried to close the door but it was still a little distracting. I don’t believe I had any preconceived notions of any kind however, she thought I was a telemarketer at first, so we had to clear that up before we could continue. :)
All in all, I feel that the conversation was very productive. For me, to get an outside opinion from someone and understanding that my last resort may be my only option. I hope that I gave her some insight on a possible new approach with her dilemma. The only judgment that I made about her was that she is very passionate about the well-being of her students and will see to it that they get the resources that are necessary.
I feel that we definitely worked together as a team during our conversation. We both asked questions to better understand the problems as well as offered resolutions. One challenge was that neither of us had been in the other’s position, so we were not speaking from experience. However, I think we both had some good points on our issues and it helped to look at them with fresh eyes. My problem was concerning child support and hers was about fulfilling a student’s needs after they had been denied by her supervisor.
I personally had some barriers to communication, but I’m not sure about Brenda. I have a six month old daughter and although my mother was watching her during the phone call I could hear her crying in the other room. I tried to close the door but it was still a little distracting. I don’t believe I had any preconceived notions of any kind however, she thought I was a telemarketer at first, so we had to clear that up before we could continue. :)
All in all, I feel that the conversation was very productive. For me, to get an outside opinion from someone and understanding that my last resort may be my only option. I hope that I gave her some insight on a possible new approach with her dilemma. The only judgment that I made about her was that she is very passionate about the well-being of her students and will see to it that they get the resources that are necessary.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Barriers to Communication
A noisy place or somewhere with too much going on so that you are unable to focus on the conversation. The room temperature or weather. How comfortable you are while having the discussion etc.
VERBAL: Ways of speaking that get in the way of good communication, e.g. using slang, jargon, or acronyms. What are some of the verbal barriers you have encountered?
Tone of voice, if too harsh or demeaning. When there is no pause in speech to have a reply. Word choice… some words have a certain connotation linked to them.
INTERPERSONAL: Relationship issues between two people that can have a negative effect on communication. These barriers are difficult because they can’t be seen, heard, or touched. The two most common interpersonal barriers are incorrect assumptions and different perceptions. Others include certain phrases, beliefs, and prejudices. Are you aware of your interpersonal barriers?
Racism. Sexism. Having a parent that is an authoritarian ruler etc. When people judge others it affects how they respond when they speak. If you already have some sort of prejudice against someone its is difficult, if not impossible to look beyond that and actually hear what they have to say about a situation. Most only hear what they need in order to support they’re prior believes.
Chapters 1-3
(Never mind on the previous question. I just read Dr. D's instructions.)
I just finished the reading assignment and I found the topics in the book very interesting. I enjoy the description of different bargaining techniques and that it uses numerous examples to illustrate the scenarios. (I do better with that than "theoretically" speaking)
After reading the section on the "philatelist auction" I recognized that human nature is, in fact very dishonest when negotiating or "battling" for an item, due to many factors. I like how the philatelist auction allows for a more straightforward approach and one is able to place a bid on exactly what the they believe an item is worth. This is versus trying to assume they're opponents approach thus either paying too much, or not bidding the amount they should have and loosing the item all together.
I think this also goes for having a third party involved in a negotiation that seems to be in a dead lock. The negotiators will recieve better results and use all the assesets on the table if they are able to approach each other in a more honest and trusting way instead of feeling like they will be taken advantage of if they express new options.
I also found the chapter on Coloberative Problem Solving very interesting. The book was very thorough in its description of the process as well as why most choose not to use this approach. It addressed each issue and showed it is possible to facilate such an effort and admitted that it was not the easiest approach. I believe the author is one hundred percent correct about including all parties even if you think they will cause trouble because they will cause more if ignored during the process. Also that all parties need to participate constructively instead to throwing out demands which will only hinder the process. The quote that was used was "Check your guns at the door but don't throw them away" (pg 37). I liked the step by step process given as well. The Newark, NJ example was a very positive illustration of how this approach can, in fact, achieve results.
My question to you is: Do you feel that Colobrative Probleming Solving is possible on a higher scale, like national government?
(Never mind on the previous question. I just read Dr. D's instructions.)
I just finished the reading assignment and I found the topics in the book very interesting. I enjoy the description of different bargaining techniques and that it uses numerous examples to illustrate the scenarios. (I do better with that than "theoretically" speaking)
After reading the section on the "philatelist auction" I recognized that human nature is, in fact very dishonest when negotiating or "battling" for an item, due to many factors. I like how the philatelist auction allows for a more straightforward approach and one is able to place a bid on exactly what the they believe an item is worth. This is versus trying to assume they're opponents approach thus either paying too much, or not bidding the amount they should have and loosing the item all together.
I think this also goes for having a third party involved in a negotiation that seems to be in a dead lock. The negotiators will recieve better results and use all the assesets on the table if they are able to approach each other in a more honest and trusting way instead of feeling like they will be taken advantage of if they express new options.
I also found the chapter on Coloberative Problem Solving very interesting. The book was very thorough in its description of the process as well as why most choose not to use this approach. It addressed each issue and showed it is possible to facilate such an effort and admitted that it was not the easiest approach. I believe the author is one hundred percent correct about including all parties even if you think they will cause trouble because they will cause more if ignored during the process. Also that all parties need to participate constructively instead to throwing out demands which will only hinder the process. The quote that was used was "Check your guns at the door but don't throw them away" (pg 37). I liked the step by step process given as well. The Newark, NJ example was a very positive illustration of how this approach can, in fact, achieve results.
My question to you is: Do you feel that Colobrative Probleming Solving is possible on a higher scale, like national government?
Answering Assessments
I found myself being torn between two answers on many of the questions too. I'm sure it's because we are torn between what we are and how we view ourselves or what others to see us.
Thanks for resending your invitation
Thanks for resending your invitation
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
I had a great deal of trouble answering the assessments. I felt as though I was town between two options on almost all of the questions. But, never the less, these are my results (most of them ties):
DISC
I was equally a D and C (28-28). This means that, on the one hand, am I very analytical and have high standards for facts and credibility (C). And on the other I’m very assertive in telling someone what I want and also expect people to be very straightforward. (no nonsense) (D).
TAPT
I am a ESTJ
Extravert: I prefer to focus on the “outer world”
Senser: I prefer dealing with tangible things like facts or data.
Thinker: I choose logic over emotion
Judger: I like to be organized and finish the things I start. “Linear Thinker”
NLP
I had the most trouble answering these questions. But apparently I’m a visual person, with auditory coming in a close second.
Conflict Management Style
Once again I tied. I’m the Competing or Forcing Shark along with the Collaborating Owl.
The Competing Shark
· Sharks use a forcing or competing conflict management style.
· Sharks are highly goal-oriented.
· Relationships take on a lower priority.
· Sharks do not hesitate to use aggressive behaviour to resolve conflicts.
· Sharks can be autocratic, authoritative, and uncooperative; threatening and intimidating.
· Sharks have a need to win; therefore others must lose, creating win-lose situations.
· Advantage: If the shark's decision is correct, a better decision without compromise can result.
· Disadvantage: May breed hostility and resentment toward the person using it.
· Appropriate times to use a Shark style:
o when conflict involves personal differences that are difficult to change
o when fostering intimate or supportive relationships is not critical
o when others are likely to take advantage of noncompetitive behavior
o when conflict resolution is urgent; when decision is vital in crisis
o when unpopular decisions need to be implemented
The Collaborating Owl
· Owls use a collaborating or problem confronting conflict management style valuing their goals and relationships.
· Owls view conflicts as problems to be solved finding solutions agreeable to all sides (win-win).
· Advantage: both sides get what they want and negative feelings eliminated.
· Disadvantage: takes a great deal of time and effort.
· Appropriate times to use an Owl Style:
o when maintaining relationships is important
o when time is not a concern
o when peer conflict is involved
o when trying to gain commitment through consensus building
o when learning and trying to merge differing perspectives
Source: Mastering Human Relations, 3rd Ed. by A. Falikowski 2002 Pearson Education http://www.pearsoned.ca
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
