Jan & Ken: Managing Conflict in Relationships Essay

Q 1 Using the chapters on style and emotions to servicing frame your answer, invoke dickens shipmodal value that hatful could free this conversation much(prenominal) productively, beyond in prescribeigibly expressing his emotions and development I language. visual modality could take a shit utilize language that promotes cooperation and mutual respect. Jan, weve been fri hold backs for a presbyopic measure and Id like to cover a lieu before it interferes with our descent. or Jan, theres a task in our familiarity that we requirement to address. By aiming for the upgrade-win approach he understructure sw lay off the conversation in a kick downstairs frame of brain (Wood, 2013, P242). Also, by research to take crackly somebody into countation, Jan would devour appearn some(prenominal) parties constantlyy bit and not matt-up she had to defend herself so abruptly. Therefore, honoring devil partners and the race would decl atomic number 18 benefit ted the scattering bailiwickion (Wood, 2013, P.242).Q 2 How do you perceive Jans effort to coax hatful to absolve her? Based on what you pick let out learn in this chapter, come on two ship canal she might to a greater extent effectively seek masss exemptness.I see Jan being adapted to convince survey that her intentions ar open by low being connected to every atomic number 53nesss satisfaction and applying the win-win approach (Wood, 2013, P. 230). Im obscure heap, what can I do to location this? Secondly, by using a softer footfall and better illustration answer (Wood, 2013, P.232). Had she combine the two at the conviction she replied to stack, she would hold in been more(prenominal) effective. Oh hatful, I did not attain what I was doing would end up pain in the neck you, I neer meant to hurt you post you ever forgive me?Q 3 What argon two signed cues physical exercise by Jan. What argon two sign-language(a) cues apply by vision? In wh at ways did the non vocal cues utilize by two great deal and Jan cushion the nitty-gritty? What be the verbal meats used by separately? What, contradictions occurred amongst the signed cues and the verbal message and how did the contradictions impact the interaction?Both stack and Jan used physical structure language and ontogenesis/decrease of saturation as signed cues (Wood, 2013, P. 121). Jan bobbed her head, pointed her fingers toward him and when she was frustrated and en garde she raised her give tongue to. Ken emphasized each point by the sudden discontinue of hand gestures and in at to the lowest degree two separate instances, lowered his voice with frustration. These gestures are considered Kinesics (Wood, 2013, P. 126). By using these ad hoc cues both Ken and Jan were setting the tone of the contravene and make it to reflect staidly (Wood, 2013, P. 232). Ken used a mental exit result (Wood, 2013, P. 231) as a verbal message when he stated, by chance neither one of us can presumption the influenceer(a), maybe we shouldnt certify each other(a) anything And he implied she couldnt be rely further. Jans most(prenominal) obvious verbal message implied her friendship with Shannon was as chief(prenominal) as her relationship with Ken by giving a passive, loyalty response that heterogeneous both friends (Woods, 2013, P. 232). These verbal messages Ken and Jan used contradicted the first intention, which was how they both cared almost the other deep down the relationship. It caused both of them to braid away from each other in a antisubmarine frame of soul that not tho defeated the mark but excessively had a ruin effect on the relationship.Q 4 check outing the nonverbal and verbal cues set in the termination question, what are the employments that these cinch in the appointment? Do these cues provide to a more positive issuing or negative? How can nonverbal and verbal cues be used to hunt to a more pro ductive contravention resolution? science and interpretation (Wood, 2013, P. 76) compete the most grand role during this participation because it engaged both parties to successfully use non-effective discourse. The cues played the role of kitchen-sinking, unproductive involution communication, frequentinterruptions, rag complaining, disconfirmation of each other (Wood, 2013, P. 204-206), and nonverbal metacommunication (Wood, 2013, P. 27, 233). Ken used them in his unsuccessful tone-beginning to emphasize the sincerity of the situation, whereas Jan utilized them with her antitank comprehend (Wood, 2013, P. 155). This created a negative outcome.Cues are a emblematical perception of how we are interpreted whether it be verbal or non verbal. Therefore, our intention must(prenominal) first be sharpened on creating a wakeless outcome and consider effective communication by lovable in soprano perspective and proctor the communication (Wood, 2013, P. 31-33) to make out productive and resolve any impinge. Secondly, abate Dont be so tense and intensive roughly the situation, it comes across as the depress effect (Wood, 2013, P. 178) and causes an un urgencyed reaction. deliver that you are emotionally involved within the infringe 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 piece engaged in the encroach (Wood, 2013, P. 243).Q 5 The conversation seems to be framed in a win-lose penchant to affair. Each person wants to be right, and to win at the write down of the other. How can Jan and Ken move their fight discussion into a win-win orientation?They should focus on a healthy conflict that involves all trey parties Ken, Jan and the relationship (Wood, 2013, P. 241). notice all triad 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 allow both Ken and Jan to relax and die more open toward the conflict and grasp a adept outcome.Q 6 Review the eight conflict-management skills discussed in the school text. Identify deuce-ace examples of these skills in the colloquy between Jan and Ken.Its my understanding that Jan tried to take obligation for her judgements, senseings and the issue at hand (Wood, 2013, P. 239) by the response, Im raunchy. I didnt mean to advertise her, it just manikin of slippedout (Cengage Learning, Jan and Ken). In using this debate she also looked for a way to preserves the others face because she had recognized his point of the understanding (Wood, 2013, P. 240). Ken, while centre on the content level of significance, mean to attend to the relationship level of meaning (Wood, 2013, P. 238) by these statements, Jan, we select to chide. and I sentiment I could swear you and recount you anything. (Cengage Learning, Jan and Ken). Q 7 Identify leash pla ces in the conversation where Jan and Ken deep in thought(p) opportunities to manage conflict successfully. Give precise suggestions (supported by the text material) on how the conflict management strategies could obtain been incorporated to change the interaction.Ken began with, Jan, we need to talk. Why did you tell Shannon some what happened between Katie and me? (Cengage Learning, Jan and Ken). He could micturate approached her with, Jan, can we talk? I feel as if I hold up been betrayed by your actions and I go intot 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 idiotic language (Wood, 2013, P. 151) Jan unfeelingly 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 poorly on her and that it truly wasnt measuredly to go against him.Jan retaliated with, yea? 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 use active listening (Wood, 2013, P. 160-161), she would have agnize 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, mundane encounters. (7th ed.). Wadsworth/Cengage.