Interpersonal Conflict From Chapter One

¶ … interpersonal conflict from chapter one of our textbook to the case study. Once we review the definition, we will then apply it and draw the necessary conclusions in order to solve the case study. According to Ruth Ann Abigail and Dudley D. Cahn, conflict in a relationship wells up when there are deep differences that occur between the two sides that can occur in disagreement. They can concern a number of differences (religious, economic, etc.).

that arise between friends or groups that if not handled competently could bring about the end of the relationship ( Abigail & Cahn, 2010, 2). Essentially, different sides have different needs and the conflict arises from the immediate inability to reconcile and sort these out. In the relationship, one friend is "wearing out the welcome mat," therefore causing conflict with the friend's other roommates as well as causing a stressful situation that that friend puts off dealing with until she finally blows up at the offending freeloader.

This is a typical reaction from many people who seek to avoid conflict or who do not have the skills to sort them out. Overreaction can occur as did in the case study. Many consulting businesses make a full-time business out of sorting such conflicts out for clients in human resource contexts. While work related, the lessons learned can be applied to working out personal conflicts as well. Although the blowup has already occurred, it is not too late to salvage the relationship.

To do this, the two parties can apply the defusing technique. In this, one party can find something in the other person's position that is justified and then use this as an access point to begin working toward finding a midpoint at which compromise and resolution can happen. Even though the other side may be largely wrong in the situation, there is usually some truth in that person or group's position. Acknowledging the validity of that position can be a beginning.

In this particular case, while the freeloader's situation was clearly unjustified, the host did not establish any boundary lines. In such a situation, the rules were not clear and misunderstandings can certainly happen. Blowing up at the offending party was not justified and was an overreaction ("Interpersonal conflict and," 2011). It is the opinion of this author that by acknowledging this, apologizing for the overreaction and then pointing out the wrong on the other side last is a good way to defuse the situation and start going in the right direction.

To follow up, empathy can then be used as a tool to help bridge the gap. Using an "I" statement such as "I feel pretty upset " rather than "You have made me feel very upset" can aid in this defusing. Then, by stroking the person's ego, finding more positives on their sides can completely calm the situation down. Then, the person trying to defuse the situation can then represent their position successfully by.