Jan & Ken: Managing Conflict in Relationships Essay

Q 1 Using the chapters on phrase and emotions to help frame your answer, suggest two ways that deal could propagate this conversation more productively, beyond clearly expressing his emotions and using I language. muckle could consume used language that promotes cooperation and mutual respect. Jan, weve been fri peculiaritys for a long time and Id like to discuss a mail before it interferes with our relationship. or Jan, theres a problem in our friendship that we need to address. By aiming for the win-win approach he can begin the conversation in a better frame of listen (Wood, 2013, P242). Also, by striving to take each person into consideration, Jan would have seen some(prenominal) parties equally and not matte up she had to defend herself so abruptly. Therefore, honoring both partners and the relationship would have benefitted the opening statement (Wood, 2013, P.242).Q 2 How do you perceive Jans effort to convince Ken to forgive her? Based on what you have acquire in th is chapter, suggest two ways she might more effectively seek Kens forgiveness.I see Jan being able to convince Ken that her intentions atomic number 18 sincere by graduation exercise being committed to everyones satisfaction and applying the win-win approach (Wood, 2013, P. 230). Im woeful Ken, what can I do to fix this? Secondly, by using a softer tone and better voice response (Wood, 2013, P.232). Had she combine 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 argon two sign-language(a) cues used by Jan. What are two non literal cues used by Ken? In what ways did the nonverbal cues used by both Ken and Jan impact the contentedness? 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 increase/decrease of volume as nonverbal cues (Wood, 2013, P. 121). Jan bobbed her head, pointed her fingers toward him and when she was frustrated and antisubmarine she raised her voice. Ken emphasized each point by the sudden ascertain of hand gestures and in at least 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 contradict and causing it to reflect gravely (Wood, 2013, P. 232). Ken used a psychological exit response (Wood, 2013, P. 231) as a verbal message when he stated, Maybe neither one of us can swear the opposite, maybe we shouldnt ensure each other anything And he implied she couldnt be trusted 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, 201 3, P. 232). These verbal messages Ken and Jan used contradicted the original intention, which was how they both cared near the other within the relationship. It caused both of them to pull away from each other in a justificative frame of mind that not only defeated the purpose but also had a ravage effect on the relationship.Q 4 Reviewing the nonverbal and verbal cues identified in the last question, what are the roles that these forge in the difference of opinion? Do these cues lead to a more positive let outcome or forbid? How can nonverbal and verbal cues be used to lead to a more productive involvement resolution?Perception and interpretation (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, frequentinterruptions, cross complaining, disconfirmation of each other (Wood, 2013, P. 204-206), a nd nonverbal metacommunication (Wood, 2013, P. 27, 233). Ken used them in his unsuccessful attempt to emphasize the seriousness of the situation, whereas Jan utilized them with her defensive listening (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 corking outcome and consider effective communication by engaging in dual perspective and monitor lizard the communication (Wood, 2013, P. 31-33) to release productive and resolve any conflict. Secondly, relax Dont be so tense and intense about the situation, it comes across as the chilling effect (Wood, 2013, P. 178) and causes an un wishinged reaction. render that you are emotionally involved within the conflict by effectively expressing your emotions (Wood, 2013, P. 180-181) and respond sensitively when others communicate their emotions (Wood, 2013, P. 186-187). Show grace wh ile engaged in the conflict (Wood, 2013, P. 243).Q 5 The conversation seems to be framed in a win-lose orientation to conflict. Each person wants to be right, and to win at the expense 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 three 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 direct grace in the nonverbal form (Wood, 2013, P. 243). This will allow 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 dialogue between Jan and Ken.Its my understanding that Jan tried to take province for her thoughts, feelings and the issue at hand (Wood, 2013, P. 239) by the response, Im sorry. I didnt mean to prom ulgate her, it just kind of slippedout (Cengage Learning, Jan and Ken). In using this statement she also looked for a way to touch 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, mean to attend to the relationship level of meaning (Wood, 2013, P. 238) by these statements, Jan, we need to whistle. 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 reform 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 action s and I dont want it to ruin our friendship. This way he would be applying grace and sincerity toward the relationship (Wood, 2013, P. 243).By reacting to emotionally ludicrous 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? Like 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 active listening (Wood, 2013, P. 160-161), she would have completed 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.