Part 1
After evaluating the conflict resolution questionnaire, I viewed my responses as being more of a collaborative kind of a person. Despite the fact that at times, I might be more interested in being in control and being less cooperative, if all the aspects are right, I will ensure that every party in the discussion is represented and feels appreciated. I will mostly compromise if I think it will help smoothen the outcome and then offer my solution later. I believe that relationships are at times more important than being always right. Persevering relationships demand a high level of interaction and cooperation altogether. Despite the fact that at times, one has to be assertive, trying to reason and explaining one’s logic has always been more appealing than causing unnecessary conflicts.
While most of the people I know are more assertive when it comes to dealing with conflicts, I tend to do the opposite. Having learnt that asserting one’s way does not work effectively, I learnt the importance of dealing with issues with a lot of compromise. Likewise, I have learnt that although I am good at coming up with solutions for the various problems that we face, it is always equally important to ensure that one sources advice from other people. While other people propose solutions, they feel that their various needs are represented adequately. As much as individual goals seem appealing to me, I have also found out that compromise is equally beneficial with people brainstorming and bringing in better ideas to the table. Without a proper understanding of other people’s perspectives and options, it is very easy to be in conflict. Trying to get one’s own way every time always has way negative repercussions as opposed to having the interests of everyone represented.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Part 2
Solving an intergroup problem within any given community is a complicated situation bearing in mind that the group is not an individual. Despite the fact that a group of people adopts a similar kind of thinking, it is evident that not all members of the group advocate for the idea (Piskurich, 2003). However, the group of neighbors opposed to the construction of the homes within the community might fail to understand why homeless people get settled in their neighborhood, which could lead to the devaluation of the land rates and prestige of the community. In such a scenario, there is a high possibility that assertiveness might not work as well as it should. As such, collaboration is a more advisable approach to handling such a conflict.
In a way, it is understandable that the fears of the community are at hand, and therefore, one of the groups will have to compromise (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). Depending on the nature of the issue, the community needs some assurance to separate from the new houses. Arguably, the group of donors funding the construction of the community can promise to build a high wall creating a divide between the newly constructed communities, which would be preferably a gated community. Since the land donated might cost a fortune to relocate the homeless people, giving the host community some assurance that the community will be separate from theirs might allow for a consensual agreement between the two organizations.
References
Piskurich, G. M. (2003). Getting the Most from Online Learning: A Learner's Guide . Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. S.l.: Consulting Psychologists Press.
