Using The Case Study, “He Said, She Said,” Discuss Conflict

Using the case study, “He Said, She Said,” discuss conflict styles and tactics

Using the course materials and the Discussion from Unit 5, write a response paper between words.

Using the case study, “He Said, She Said,” discuss conflict styles. Include a brief summary of the case and conflict styles in the text. Specifically, identify and describe the specific conflict styles and tactics each of the participants uses. In addition, offer suggestions about how the participants could create a more constructive conflict through flexibility. Use the course materials and specific examples from the case study to substantiate your claims.

Your Assignment should be words and include the following elements: Title page: Provide a running head, your name, section number, and date Body: Provide your answer to the prompt above in complete sentences and paragraphs, using course materials and examples to support your findings Your responses should reflect professional writing standards using proper tone and language and be free of spelling and grammatical errors. The writing should be well ordered, logical, and unified, as well as original and insightful, and should reflect knowledge of communication and conflict. Your viewpoint and purpose should be clearly established and sustained. Reference page: Sources in APA format Your full references should be listed alphabetically on the reference page Use Arial or Times New Roman 12-point font, double-spaced, and left aligned Use standard 1" margins on all sides Use 6th Edition APA formatting and citation style throughout your paper

Paper For Above instruction

The case study titled “He Said, She Said” provides an insightful depiction of interpersonal conflict within a familial setting. This conflict revolves around Marie, an adult college student and mother, who is struggling to enforce discipline with her son Lenny amid disapproval from her fiancé Mike. The escalating exchanges illustrate distinct conflict styles and tactics employed by each participant, which offer a clear lens through which to analyze constructive communication strategies.

Marie primarily demonstrates an accommodative or compromising conflict style, especially evident in her initial responses to Lenny’s late return home. Her emotional reaction—standing at the door frantically questioning Lenny and expressing concern—reflects an attempt to maintain harmony and display nurture, albeit with a tendency to become emotionally reactive. She also exhibits a degree of avoidance when she suppresses her anger during the morning confrontation, attempting to keep peace despite her evident frustration. Her approach entails a mix of emotionality and resistance to open, assertive conflict, characteristic of affiliative conflict tactics that prioritize relationship maintenance over direct confrontation.

Conversely, Mike’s conflict approach reveals a more assertive and possibly aggressive style, though his tactics are somewhat passive in execution. During the heated argument, Mike employs silence and a passive withdrawal, tuning out Marie’s criticisms and disengaging from the conflict rather than confronting it directly. When he finally intervenes vocally, his comments—comparing how he would have been punished—serve as an attempt to provoke a sense of fairness, yet they border on maladaptive conflict tactics that heighten the discord by emphasizing blame and differences in parenting philosophies. His decision to leave the scene and her subsequent remark about interference exemplify an avoidance style, evading the real issues and postponing resolution.

To foster a more constructive conflict resolution, participants could adopt a flexible, collaborative approach rooted in mutual understanding and active listening. For example, Marie might employ more assertiveness by calmly expressing her concerns about discipline strategies without emotional escalation, fostering a clearer dialogue about shared goals. Mike, on his part, could practice empathetic listening and affirm Marie’s efforts, recognizing her authority as part of a shared parenting partnership. Both could benefit from employing problem-solving tactics—such as negotiating specific consequences for Lenny’s behavior—rather than resorting to emotional accusations or withdrawal. This approach aligns with the principles discussed in Hocker and Wilmot’s (2018) framework, which emphasizes the importance of flexibility in conflict styles for effective resolution.

Furthermore, both parties should develop conflict awareness by recognizing their natural tendencies and consciously choosing more adaptive tactics, such as active listening, assertiveness, and problem-solving. For instance, when Marie feels her authority challenged, instead of defensiveness, she could acknowledge Mike’s concerns and collaboratively develop a consistent discipline plan. Similarly, Mike could express his frustrations constructively, framing his suggestions in a way that emphasizes partnership rather than opposition. Such adaptive strategies promote relationship durability, mutual respect, and effective conflict management, ultimately benefiting the entire family unit.

In conclusion, the case highlights the detrimental effects of rigid conflict styles and maladaptive tactics in family conflicts. By cultivating flexibility and employing constructive communication strategies rooted in empathy and collaboration, the participants can transform their disputes into opportunities for growth and understanding. These shifts not only improve immediate interpersonal dynamics but also establish a foundation for healthier interactions in future conflicts, in accordance with the essential principles outlined in the course materials.

References

• Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (2018). Interpersonal conflict (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. Handbook of organizational behavior, 1, 651-675.
• Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206-235.
• Gewirtz, A. H., DeGarmo, D. S., & Snover, C. (2014). The influence of co-parenting on the development of adolescent social competence. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(6), 820–829.
• Burleson, B. R., & Goldsmith, D. J. (1998). How communication surrounds and sustains conflict in family relationships. Communication Yearbook, 21, 455-472.
• Baxter, L. A. (2010). Relating: dialogic approaches to family communication. Open University Press.
• Peterson, R. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press.
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Pearson Education.
• Gottman, J., & DeClaire, J. (2017). The science of trust: Emotional attunement for couples. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Deutsch, M. (1994). Constructive conflict resolution: Principles, training, and research. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), 13-32.