As we noted at several points, there are certain inherent tensions involved in trying to put these values into practice; each of them carried to an extreme often contradicts others. A key element to successful critical thinking is understanding the balance between these different criteria and the need for occasionally trading off one against another. As we suggested earlier, belief in reason and the rules for civilized dialogue are probably the essential starting points for any exercise in critical thinking. If we can’t agree on the basic rules for engagement with others - rules that honor the traditions of dialogue and that are commonly accepted by thinkers everywhere - then the prospect for effective engagement and truly critical common thinking is vastly reduced. We have to agree on the rules of logic and the nature of dialogue and the role of evidence, as well as criteria for evaluating the quality of evidence.
Visualization ensures that one trains the mind to be realistic and focused on what is achievable (Ridge Associates, 1). Secondly, one can engage a neutral party whom he or she can have a mock conversation with in an effort to understand the issues that are likely to arise and further complicate the conversation (Lewicki, Barry and Saunders, Pg). A mock conversation with neutral persons helps in the identification of the implications of various behaviours and statements in advance (Bush and Folger, 44). This is because neutral persons can offer objective feedback about one’s emotional status which can then be addressed before the actual conversation (Stone, Patton and Heen, 28). Moreover, having a mock conversation can help one identify particular facts objective statements that can positively influence how the other person will react during the actual conversation.
I have learnt that challenging or clarifying assumptions and encouraging people to reframe is essential. Also to be an effective leaders it is necessary learn and practise the use tools like the 'Ladder of Inference ' and 'Reflective Inquiry ' to challenge each other’s assumptions in order to build shared understanding. This in turn relies on
As a compromiser myself, I can relate. However, even though compromising has cons associated with it, it can be influential about learning other styles. Ultimately, if compromisers analyze and seek to understand and improve their conflicts, they can learn different styles allowing them to adapt to differing conflicts in order to solve disputes
Crisis intervention theory into practice often filled with hidden uncalculated circumstances. Understanding a relationship to assist in solving a crisis. The perception of the information that the person has for the situation and the ability to be ready for whatever circumstances are going to present are the two critical determinants of success in this field (Everly & Mitchell,1999). Crisis interventionist main objective is to focus on the person in crisis other than the problem. The crisis is the way the person sees from their point of view, how they endure the crisis, interpret or how they emote during a situation.
“An interest-based approach recognizes that using power within a relationship to force an agreement often results in decisions that are unwise, are of poor quality, or are not accepted or supported by those who will carry them out” (Polzin & DeLord, 2006, pg. 34). We simply can’t be bullies when it comes to using this method. Everyone has to be in agreement with what actions that will be used to carry out the problems. There are six steps when using the Interest-Based, Problem-Solving Method: (1) Select an issue or problem to address; clarify and build understanding about the issue, (2) Identify the stakeholders (who are affected) and their interest, needs or concerns about the issue, (3) Invent options that might address all or some of the interests, (4) Evaluate the options against the interest; identify overarching interests that is interests that are shared by all) that any solution should meet; discuss the
A leader’s attitude towards conflict will shift the situation to a positive or negative experience for the company and participants. For leaders to be effective at conflict resolution a helping relationship based on mutual trust, respect, candid communication and empathy needs to be employed. Conflict in Organizations Bercovitch  found that Conflict has no predetermined course or development thus it seems erroneous to view conflict from a negative perspective only as destructive or dysfunctional. It is true that conflict may be uncomfortable, it may even be a source of problems, but it is absolutely necessary if change is to occur, if organizations are to survive and adapt. Organizational change and innovation does not just happen, it requires a stimulant.
Conflict management styles refers to the key perspective of how an individual deals with conflict in order to strike a balance in satisfying personal needs and goals between self and the other party,(refer to text book). The key argument is the different conflict required different management style, an individual free to choose anything style that is suitable to his or her conflict, but if the wrong style is deployed, the conflict could be worsen or remain unresolved, (Weeks, 1994 as cited in Ang, 2013). There are five primary orientation of conflict management styles, “avoidance”, “competition”, “compromise”, “accommodation” and “collaboration”, (Blake & Mouton, 1964; C. Brown, Yelsmer, & Keller, 1981; L. Brown, 1983; Canary & Cupach,
But this is certainly a reasonable list that probably covers most of the key elements. How can we apply these qualities in practical analytical situations? As we noted at several points, there are certain inherent tensions involved in trying to put these values into practice; each of them carried to an extreme often contradicts others.Fairness and empathy are characteristics that we demonstrate in the dialogue. It does little good to proclaim ourselves fair and empathic if we, in fact, are arbitrary and rejecting of other points of view of the top. They are virtues best practiced in silence; calling attention to one’s fairness and empathy is not merely bad manners, but generally counterproductive, since if you need to assert your own qualities here, you’re probably not adequately demonstrating them in practice.