Read The WSJ Article: Why Do We Fight Using Personal Comment

Read The Wsj Article Why Do We Fight Using The Personal Communicat

Read The WSJ article “ Why Do We Fight? â€. Using The Personal Communication Map, deconstruct what happened and where the people are on the Left side of the map ( ) Rewrite the story of how the conversation could have gone using the Right side of the Personal Communication Map. Using the concepts below and the Personal Communication Map, answer the question. QUESTION: In what ways can you reduce conflict in your work and home life? Discuss the following concepts as they relate to your personal experiences with conflict: Control Communication ethics Perception checking.

Paper For Above instruction

The article "Why Do We Fight?" published in the Wall Street Journal explores the underlying reasons behind conflicts that occur in personal and professional contexts. A comprehensive understanding of interpersonal communication, particularly through the lens of the Personal Communication Map, can help identify the dynamics that contribute to conflict and provide strategies for constructive resolution. This essay deconstructs a typical conflict scenario, analyzes it using the left side of the Personal Communication Map, and then rewrites the scenario on the right side, illustrating how different communication approaches can lead to more positive outcomes. Furthermore, it discusses how concepts such as control, communication ethics, and perception checking can be applied to reduce conflicts both at work and at home, drawing from personal experiences.

In analyzing the conflict scenario with the Personal Communication Map, we first identify the participants' initial positions and messages. On the left side of the map, which often represents a reactive or defensive communication style, the interaction might have unfolded as follows: one person, feeling misunderstood and undervalued, might have responded defensively to criticism. For example, an employee might have felt unfairly criticized by a supervisor and responded by raising their voice or withdrawing from the conversation. Conversely, the supervisor might have responded with authoritative language, escalating the conflict rather than de-escalating it. Both parties are operating under perceptions of threat or injustice, triggering emotional responses rather than goal-oriented dialogue. This reactive pattern reflects a lack of awareness of emotions and the inability to regulate responses, which often leads to conflict intensification.

Using the right side of the Personal Communication Map, which emphasizes awareness, empathy, and constructive dialogue, the same scenario can be transformed into a more productive exchange. Instead of defensiveness, the employee might choose to express their feelings using "I" statements, such as, "I felt overwhelmed when I received the critique, and I would appreciate some guidance on how to improve." The supervisor, in turn, might respond with acknowledgment and active listening: "I understand that you’re feeling overwhelmed, and I’d like to work with you to address these concerns." Such an approach promotes mutual understanding, reduces defensiveness, and fosters cooperation. It aligns with the principles of non-violent communication, emphasizing empathy, honesty, and shared goals.

To effectively reduce conflict in personal and professional relationships, understanding and applying core concepts such as control, communication ethics, and perception checking are essential. Control refers to recognizing what we can and cannot influence within a conflict. By focusing on controlling our responses and emotions rather than external circumstances or others' behaviors, we can maintain composure and clarity. For instance, at work, choosing to remain calm during a disagreement enables clearer communication and problem-solving. In personal settings, exercising control over our reactions prevents conflicts from escalating unnecessarily.

Communication ethics involve honesty, respect, and integrity, forming the foundation of trust in any relationship. When conflicts arise, adhering to ethical communication means expressing ourselves truthfully without manipulation or blame. For example, instead of making accusations, discussing how certain actions affected us and requesting specific changes demonstrates ethical communication that promotes understanding and resolution.

Perception checking is a vital technique to ensure mutual understanding. It involves clarifying assumptions and interpretations before reacting defensively. For example, in a disagreement, asking questions like, "Did I understand correctly that you felt overlooked in the meeting?" allows both parties to verify perceptions, reducing misunderstandings and misattributions. Applying perception checking in daily interactions fosters empathy and de-escalates potential conflicts.

Drawing from personal experiences, I have found that conflicts often escalate when misunderstandings are left unaddressed, and emotions take precedence over facts. For example, during a dispute with a colleague over project responsibilities, I initially responded defensively, feeling unfairly judged. Reflecting on the situation using the concepts discussed, I could have employed perception checking to clarify the colleague's intentions, adhered to ethical communication by expressing my perspective honestly, and focused on controlling my emotional reactions. Subsequently, I realized that approaching conflicts with empathy, openness, and a focus on shared goals significantly reduces tension and fosters constructive solutions.

Applying these principles regularly can help manage conflicts more effectively at work and home. Prior to reacting, considering my emotional state and practicing perception checking can prevent misunderstandings. Ensuring my communication aligns with ethical standards reinforces trust and cooperation. By exercising control over my reactions and emphasizing empathy, I can create a collaborative atmosphere that promotes conflict resolution rather than conflict escalation.

References

  • Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and Debates. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Gordon, T. (2004). Parent Effectiveness Training. Crown House Publishing.
  • Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2008). Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships. Pearson.
  • Rogers, C. R., & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to Learn. Merrill Publishing.
  • Schulz von Thun, F. (1981). Miteinander Reden I: Störungen und Klärungen. Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.
  • Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (2011). Pragmatics of Human Communication. W W Norton & Co.
  • Carnegie, D. (1936). How to Win Friends and Influence People. Simon and Schuster.
  • Schwarz, R. (2014). The Skilled Facilitator. Jossey-Bass.
  • Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and Negotiation. Jossey-Bass.
  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2000). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. Pearson Education.

Related Assignments