'Jan & Ken: Managing Conflict in Relationships Essay\r'

'Q #1: Using the chapters on spoken diction and emotions to help frame your answer, arouse devil ship agency that hatful could open this parley to a greater extent amentaceously, beyond clearly expressing his emotions and victimisation â€Å"I” language.\r\n mass could select employ language that promotes cooperation and coarse respect. ”Jan, we’ve been friends for a broad fourth dimension and I’d wish to discuss a agency before it interferes with our blood.” or â€Å" Jan, on that point’s a business in our friendship that we consume to address.” By aiming for the win-win come he shadower begin the conversation in a collapse frame of mind (Wood, 2013, P242). Also, by striving to take for from from each one one one soulfulness into consideration, Jan would shoot seen twain parties equ whollyy and not matt-up she had to defend herself so abruptly. Therefore, ceremony both(prenominal) partners and the relatio nship would confirm benefitted the opening control (Wood, 2013, P.242).\r\nQ #2: How do you perceive Jan’s effort to convince wad to set free her? Based on what you buzz off learned in this chapter, suggest two delegacys she might more hard-hittingly seek awargonness’s forgiveness. I see Jan existence able to convince heap that her intentions ar sincere by first being affiliated to everyone’s satisfaction and applying the win-win approach (Wood, 2013, P. 230). â€Å" I’m distressful cognisance, what can I do to fix this?” Secondly, by use a softer tone and break in utter solvent (Wood, 2013, P.232). Had she unite the two at the clock she replied to knowingness, she would grow been more essenceive. â€Å" Oh spate, I did not realize what I was doing would end up vitiated you, I never meant to hurt you! Can you ever forgive me?”\r\nQ #3: What are two sign(a) cues use by Jan. What are two gestural cues used by Ken? I n what ways did the communicatory cues used by both Ken and Jan impact the put across? What are the oral meats used by each? What, contradictions occurred in the midst of the non communicative cues and the communicative message and how did the contradictions impact the interaction?\r\n some(prenominal) Ken and Jan used automobile trunk language and increase/ return of volume as non communicative cues (Wood, 2013, P. 121). Jan bobbed her head, pointed her fingers toward him and when she was frustrated and antiaircraft she embossed her voice. Ken emphasized each point by the choppy stop 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 apply these ad hoc cues both Ken and Jan were setting the tone of the employment and causing it to reflect soberly (Wood, 2013, P. 232). Ken used a psychological exit chemical reaction (Wood, 2013, P. 231) as a literal message when he stated, â€Å" by chance neither one of us can deposit the oppositewise, maybe we shouldn’t range each another(prenominal) any(prenominal)thing…” And he implied she couldn’t be trusted further. Jan’s close to obvious verbal message implied her friendship with Shannon was as important as her relationship with Ken by endowment a passive, loyalty response that involved both friends (Woods, 2013, P. 232). These verbal messages Ken and Jan used contradicted the current intention, which was how they both cared ab divulge the other in spite of appearance the relationship. It caused both of them to get away from each other in a defensive frame of mind that not only defeated the excogitation but also had a devastating effect on the relationship.\r\nQ #4: Reviewing the nonverbal and verbal cues identified in the placelast question, what are the consumptions that these play in the fight? Do these cues go out to a more unequivocal outcom e or banish? How can nonverbal and verbal cues be used to cartroad to a more productive contravention resolution?\r\n cognizance and interpretation (Wood, 2013, P. 76) played the most important role during this booking because it engaged both parties to successfully use non-effective communication. The cues played the role of kitchen-sinking, unproductive mesh communication, usual interruptions, cross complaining, disconfirmation of each other (Wood, 2013, P. 204-206), and nonverbal metacommunication (Wood, 2013, P. 27, 233). Ken used them in his unsuccessful judge to emphasize the seriousness of the situation, whereas Jan employ them with her defensive listening (Wood, 2013, P. 155). This created a negative outcome.\r\nCues are a symbolic perception of how we are interpreted whether it be verbal or non verbal. Therefore, our intention moldiness first be center on creating a ripe(p) outcome and consider effective communication by pleasing in dual eyeshot and monitor the communication (Wood, 2013, P. 31-33) to catch productive and resolve any conflict. Secondly, relax! Don’t be so sift and intense close to 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 in effect expressing your emotions (Wood, 2013, P. 180-181) and respond sensitively when others elapse their emotions (Wood, 2013, P. 186-187). Show modify period engaged in the conflict (Wood, 2013, P. 243).\r\nQ #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 word into a win-win orientation?\r\nThey should focalisation on a heavy conflict that involves all triplet parties: Ken, Jan and the relationship (Wood, 2013, P. 241). Honoring all tierce within the conflict confirms and regards the intention (Wood, 2013, P. 242). Th ey should show saving grace in the nonverbal radiation pattern (Wood, 2013, P. 243). This will allow both Ken and Jan to relax and occasion more open toward the conflict and achieve a exhaustively outcome.\r\nQ #6: Review the eighter conflict- effment skills discussed in the text. notice three examples of these skills in the bear words amongst Jan and Ken.\r\nIt’s my understanding that Jan try to take responsibility for her persuasions, feelings and the field at hand (Wood, 2013, P. 239) by the response, â€Å" I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to prove her, it clean kind of slipped out” (Cengage Learning, Jan and Ken). In using this statement she also looked for a way to preserve the others’ face because she had authentic his point of the agreement (Wood, 2013, P. 240). Ken, age focused on the field of study level of importee, intended to cite to the relationship level of meaning (Wood, 2013, P. 238) by these statements, â€Å" Jan, we need to talk.” and â€Å" 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 improve the interaction.\r\nKen began with, â€Å" 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, â€Å" Jan, can we talk? I feel as if I have been betrayed by your actions and I don’t want it to ruin our friendship.” This way he would be applying grace and sincerity toward the relationship (Wood, 2013, P. 243).\r\nBy reacting to emotionally loaded language (Wood, 2013, P. 151) Jan callously stated, â€Å" Ken, I told her that coarse before the two of you started dating.” (Cengag e Learning, Jan and Ken). She should have replied, â€Å" 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 finding reflected badly on her and that it genuinely wasn’t intentionally to go against him.\r\nJan retaliated with, â€Å" Yeah? Like the time I told you I was intellection about dropping out of school for one semester and you just happened to tell my dad?” (Cengage Learning, Jan and Ken). Had Jan apply active 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, â€Å" I am truly sorry Ken, can you ever forgive me?”\r\nReferences\r\nCengage Learning. (Producer). (2011). Jan and Ken [Web Video]. Retrieved from http://alturl.com/522qq Wood, J. T. (2013). Interpersonal communication, everyday enc ounters. (7th ed.). Wadsworth/Cengage.\r\n'