"I" rather than "you"

A concept that really stood out to me in this chapter was the personalized communication language where you use “I” statements rather than “you”. I never really took time to realize how much of a difference using I instead of you can make. Using you statements “emphasizes what we think is wrong with the other instead of identifying our feelings” (76). When we identify our feelings rather than pointing out the other persons flaws, we can better communicate with them.

I think that if I start expressing what I feel, instead of pointing out the bad things other people do, I will not have as much bad conflict; rather I will have good constructive conflict where we express our feelings and don’t point the finger at each other. This is something I will try to work better on and I will see what difference it makes in my communication with others.

Hearing VS listening

When I am talking to someone, most of the time I catch myself just thinking about my own opinions rather than hearing the other person out. Depending on what the conversation is about, I will try to get my ideas and thoughts out and not concentrate on the other person’s ideas. Although I catch myself doing this many times, I still believe I am a good listener. If someone has to talk to me and needs a shoulder to lean on I am there but it is when the conversation involves me that I become a bit of a bad listener.

A personal example would be when it comes to my boyfriend and I. When we talk, I usually just want to get my ideas out and although I listen, I can be stubborn and just focus on my thoughts. On the other hand, when my friends need advice or just someone to talk to, I am always there to listen and I actually hear them out. So I guess it just depends on who it is with and what relationship I have with that person. When it comes to being able to write down what they said, I think I would be able to. Even though I am trying to process my ideas, I still hear what they are saying and get it I just choose not to deeply listen to it. 

Ending conflicts

Conflicts can be very hard for me and sometimes I let my emotions take over and that makes it harder to end that conflict. When I do try to stop the conflict it is pretty hard because I like to speak my mind and find it hard to hold myself back. Also, if the other person is not open to ending the conflict then it becomes even harder because no matter what you say or do, the conflict will continue until both parties want to end it.

The S-TLC system is a great way to approach conflict but is not easy to achieve for everyone. It is something I will try to work on for future conflicts. I do prefer to stop and think before trying to deal with a conflict because after thinking my mind isn’t so scattered and my emotions have calmed down. This becomes hard depending on what the conflict is because sometimes I just want to deal with it then and there even though I know I should stop, think and give it some time before doing anything.

Techniques for solving problems

We use problem solving in our daily lives, whether it is at work, home, or any other place where you communicate with others. Some techniques that we may use for solving problems are fractionation, framing, reframing, and common ground.

Fractionation is breaking down a complex issue into smaller manageable ones. We can do this at work by breaking up the issue and trying to fix one at a time.

Framing is when mediators ask questions that avoid blaming or the passing of judgments. We can do this at home or at school when we try to resolve an issue between people without making them feel like we are judging them.

Reframing is when mediators restate a negative comment from one party so that it sounds better and less negative so that the other party can view it differently. This can happen a lot with kids because they usually understand things differently if said by a different person in a different manner.

Common ground is when both parties communicate and find something they can equally agree on. This can be seen at the work place when employees and employers can find a common ground for the situation.

What makes a good mediator?

Mediators are to be neutral and not choose either side. They are there to restore communication and allow for the conflict to be discussed. As a communication majors, we are taught how to effectively communicate with a diversity of people without passing judgment. We are always reminded to keep our minds open and not be biased. This would make a good mediator because we would keep an open mind with both parties and effectively communicate with them.

It may be difficult for lawyers and psychotherapists to do this because they are usually faced with legal cases and mostly have to choose one side to defend or go against. It is harder for them to play the role of mediator because they would not have as much of an open mind and would pass judgment easily. Being a mediator is not a easy task and one must have proper training in order to successfully be a mediator.

Effective communication

A concept from this chapter I found really helpful was the three aspects for effective communication; the occasion, the other person and your needs. It is important to consider the occasion you are in. This is important because it will depict what type of behavior will be used. The other person must be kept in mind to communicate effectively because if you disregard them, there is no communication. We must see the needs of different people and realize who they are in our lives. For example, parents and co-workers have different influences in your life so you must see what their individual needs are. Your own needs are also important because we do not want to always make put our needs first but neither do we want to never consider our needs. We must assess the importance of our needs in the situation.  I thought this concept was interesting because it is hard to think of all these aspects when communicating. I tend to sometimes forget other people’s needs and I lean towards my needs. After reading this, I think I realized why some of my communication is not effective. Something that happened to me recently was that I had a conflict with my dad. At the time I was only thinking about my needs and not his so we kept bumping heads. After a while I started to understand his side of the story so we ended up having a good talk. 

Discipline VS Punishment

It can be very hard to discipline a child in a good manner without going too far. Many parents have this issue because they simply do not know how to deal with their rebellious child. On the other hand, many parents have an issue holding themselves back even when the child is not “bad”. There is a fine line between appropriate discipline and punishment.

When a child is disciplined, they are learning from their mistakes and have privileges taken away. Many people think that spanking a child is child abuse but I do not see it this way. When I first came to America at the age of 6, we were always taught at school that if your parents ever hit you you should call 911. I do not think this is something teachers should say because then whenever a parent is trying to discipline a child and spanks them, the child automatically feels abused. A light spanking on the butt or a harsh tone are not child abuse, but a disciplinary act.

Punishment is a way of trying to get a child to listen but is usually ineffective. Punishment is different than discipline because when a child is punished they usually are spanked, and most of the time not lightly. When a parent begins to harm their child and leaves them bruised or hurt, they are punishing too much. This is how parents overstep their authority. Just because a child is “bad” or even when they are not is not a reason to extremely hurt them physically or verbally. The hardest thing a parent must learn is how to discipline their child effectively without getting out of hand and hurting them. 

Relationship-centered orientation

I have always been an assertive person, never giving in or agreeing with someone else just to avoid conflict. When it comes to dealing with conflicts, I feel that I tend to take a relationship-centered orientation. I think that I lean towards this orientation because it allows me to be assertive and share my opinions, yet I still respect others’ opinions and listen to what they have to share.

Being assertive is part of this orientation and I cannot remember a time where I was not assertive in a conflict. The outcomes of my conflicts usually satisfy me when using this orientation, but I still have trouble when it comes to collaboration and compromise. I use both but tend to lean towards collaboration.

The other orientations discussed in this chapter do not seem to fit the way I am at all so I feel that I always use the assertive relationship-centered orientation. Whether it is family, boyfriend or friends I do not switch off the way I deal with conflict. Now, of course I do not speak to my parents the same way I speak to my friends, but I am assertive to both just in different manners of speaking. I think I just need to work on collaboration versus compromise to get better outcomes.

Productive conflict

Productive conflict is when both parties do their best to not lead into a bigger problem. It is when all those involved reach a common solution and listen to each other’s opinions and thoughts without violence, anger or animosity from past feelings. People with this view believe that everyone can achieve their goal even though conflict is involved.

Productive conflict stood out to me because prior to taking this class I realized that the way I was handling my personal conflicts was not successful. By realizing this, I thought that I should make a change and start to handle conflicts differently than before.

After reading this chapter I was glad to learn what each term meant and I now know which ways I can make my conflict a productive one. By using the concept of productive conflict, I can make better decisions when I am faced with problems in the future.

Non-process view of communication

After reading chapter 2, I learned that the process view of conflict has five different steps; the prelude to conflict, triggering event, initiation of conflict, differentiation phase, and resolution phase. In order to successfully reach the final step, which is the resolution, one must go through all the other steps.

I take a non-process view of communication by not going through all the steps, which in my relationships causes friction. By not going through the process, I do not let myself or whom I am talking to, reach a resolution. I have not usually thought of this process, instead I just let the conflict begin and then bump heads with the other person until we either reach a solution or just stop talking about it and never reach an end.

To change my view of this process, I should try to go through every step instead of just trying to jump from the beginning of the conflict to a forced resolution. By taking each step one at a time, will give way to much more opinions and views of what the best resolution is.