2). Briefly outline an example of collaborative conflict resolution that you have engaged in. Contrast that with competitive conflict. Which was more satisfying to you? To the other party?
Collaborative conflict "entails the participation of all members, with each stating his or her point of view as clearly and concisely as possible, while listening attentively to those of others" (Harris, 2008, p.233). Honestly, I can't remember ever engaging in his kind of conflict with anyone. But after reading the section, it sounds like it's like a turn-taking method, where each person tries to convince the other(s) that their side/point of view is best. I suppose this one debate I had with my friend maybe could count; we were discussing these two particular video games and we were both arguing why one was better than the other. As we gave our reasons for liking the one we did, the other would listen and then either agree and give up or keep arguing. At times it did get a bit heated but whenever it did we would get bring it down a notch. Competitive conflict sounds like it is a lot messier form, and you have to be especially skilled in conflict management in order for it to not get out of hand or become "unhealthy competition." I know any type of competition is usually not healthy in relationships, especially romantic ones unless you're playing a game or sport. But in terns of arguing, it should be equal and as the books says about collaborative, "win-win."
No comments:
Post a Comment