- In your own words, please provide an overview of the six steps of the resolution road map.
When people get upset their system is flooded by emotions and hormones which in time convert the mind into an activity machine filled with ranging thoughts. The road to conflict resolution is imperative to achieving a desired result, the poor resolution process results in bad blood and grudges. The first step to conflict resolution is defining the source of the problem. The source is about the core problem. Drilling deep to understand what the problem is and who caused it is paramount to initiate the process. Secondly, there is choosing the place and time for the discussion or conversation with the person you feel is the source of the conflict. Step into their shoes and find out how they would take it on this particular chosen time and place.
Thirdly get positive or rather use an amicable approach. It’s hard to solve a problem when one of the partner’s thinks that the other is hell bound to harm them. Step four involves defining the behavior. This means getting clear and concise. This step involves figuring why they did the action and what needs to happen. Step five is brainstorming. This also called creating a game plan. It includes determining the best course of action as a unit. Lastly, when the best course of action is determined you come to an agreement. This involves execution of the brainstormed idea (Ramsbotham et. al., 2011).
- Which of the six steps do you think is your strength?
My strength among the six steps is approaching the problem amicably. I believe in positivity rather than direct accusations. This is because every conflict has two participants who have equal importance to the process. It is arguable that playing detective and finding the actual cause of the problem or intent is paramount to the amicable problem and conflict resolution. Conflict resolution is not about achieving peace. It is about creating an environment that suits and is similar to the previous one before the conflict or even better.
- Which of the six steps do find the most challenging? How do you plan of improving the selected step?
The most challenging step is finding the source of the problem. This comes with consequences of fostering more bad blood between the two parties. This is because some people are more likely to feel blamed in case they are named the source of the conflict. In my opinion it is arguable that I am likely to take the blame even when I am not at fault. This is mainly fueled by emotions and the need to resolve the conflict in a way that is favorable for both of us. I plan on mitigating this behavior y practicing on finding the source problem efficiently. To do this, I would have to first explain to them the process then engage them. This way is sure they understand the intention (Ramsbotham et. al., 2011)
- What is your opinion of reframing and why?
Reframing is changing the perspective of how you view things. This technique allows one to put themselves in the shoes of others and understanding a problem in their view. In my opinion, it is important to reframe for purposes of engaging a partner in a positive aspect. Similarly, reframing reduces the chance of superior feelings associated with pride and giant egos that eliminate the primary reason and success of problem-solving. Lastly, reframing enables the individual at fault to belong. In this way, they are sure that you understand the situation and you are working on solving it rather than blaming them.
- Do you believe reframing is valuable when using I- statements?
I-statements in conflict resolution eliminate the feeling of blame in any conversation. As opposed to ‘you’ statements I-statements attribute responsibility to the speaker. It is crucial to accept that in a conflict the two partners involved are at fault otherwise there would not be a conflict. The I-statement spread the blame between the two parties. The use of these statements shows the intent to solve the problem rather than attribute blame to one person.
Ramsbotham, Oliver, Hugh Miall, and Tom Woodhouse. Contemporary conflict resolution. Polity, 2011.