How can we reach an agreement in group discussion?
Lisa came to the class and would like to join the team
discussion. However, her ideas were
always not matched with us.
Team member: Lily, Tom, Lisa
Lily: I could not agree with the teacher’s idea no more that the
inference ladder should be reasoned step by step and…(Lisa stopped his words)
Lisa: You stupid! How could your thought stay old and support
whatever the teacher said? You should have your own understanding and views.
Tom: But the inference ladder was recognized by a few sages and
existed as a theorem. How could you overturn it?
Lisa: It is hard to have common views with you.
Tom: So what do you think?
……
Problem Solving
Fundamentally, we should understand what is the conflict and we can
solve it. It is the process that begins when one party perceives that another
party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that
the first party cares about. There are 4 stages of the conflict: potential
opposition, cognition and personalization, intentions and behavior.
Through the introduction of the story background, it is obvious that
Lisa had different opinions with the other team members. It is on the third
stage of the conflict. Lisa reckoned that we insisted on traditional views and
suggested that we should present creative ideas and he insisted that he was
right. He even used offensive language to attack us. This disrespect brought
that we could not understand her words. But we only could have one idea in a
team and we only have two choices. One was that Lisa had a powerful reason to
persuade us, or another was that the minority should subordinate to the
majority.
To achieve our goal, we decided to provide more convincing evidence
and cite a practical example to persuade him.
Lily: Actually, our goal is identical that we have to give one
conclusion to illustrate our thinking. Let us set a rule to compete, to be
objective, who can persuade the other two which means he or she can win more
adheres, we would take his or her idea as our group opinion.
Tom: I Agree!
Lisa: OK~
Persuasion by Pathos
Based on the understanding of Lisa’s personality, Lily and Tom decided
to influence her by communication in a way that induces her to voluntarily
think or act differently, rather than by power or rewards.
Firstly, we analyze the characteristics of Lisa. Sometimes she
performs a little domineering, but she admires the people who can explain the
phenomenon innovatively and reasonably.
Secondly, we search the novel idea for our topic and collect them
into a convinced story. In process, we tried to feel the way her feel and
motive her to change her attitudes.
Thirdly, if she protested any words of us, we do not directly
protest back, but calm her down first and keep her in peace. Acknowledge her
concerns, feelings and efforts. Then we tried the same meaning in other words
which are easier to accept with good body language such as eye contact and
nods.
Finally, she voluntarily thinks in the way we are.
Pathos theory is quite applicable to our team, especially to Lisa.
It address on the emotions plus predispositions that we tell a vivid story
rather than cold theory to represent an intrinsic reality with credibility. It
also captured her attention and engaged her mind.
That is the key of persuasion success in our group.
Negotiation
Negotiation is the is a dialogue between
two parties intended to reach a mutually beneficial outcome, resolve points of
difference, to gain advantage for an individual or collective
No conflict of interests exists in our teamwork. Our goal is to
reach an agreement on idea, which can be resolved by persuasion. Therefore, we
abandoned this technique to get a common idea.
Politicking
Negotiation and politicking are non-analytic, more potentially
disruptive to the group, and less likely to produce the improved
decision-making desired as a positive consequence of the group process.
Politicking is commonly considered as political means, used to solve
political problem. In our group, it is not that helpful and necessary for us to
get a consistent conclusion.
Conclusion
In summary, we exploit problem solving and persuasion to meet an
agreement in the story perfectly.
A team consists of three persons. Conflicts or discrepancies in
ideas are inevitable. The Scenario is exaggerated from the facts, but one thing
is for sure, we are positively looking for the best way to better collaboration.
Actually, we three become friends with unwritten understanding.
We trust each other, share and transfer knowledge with each other as
that mentioned in persuasion. Our sharing is open and we enhance trust in
knowledge sharing. Transferring knowledge is more effective through
interaction. Also accelerating the rate of our friendship.
Reference
Nancy E. Uhring & David R. Lambert (1982) Developments in Business
Simulation & Experiential Exercises
"Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update - Thomas -
2006 - Journal of Organizational Behavior - Wiley Online Library".
Onlinelibrary.wiley.com. 2006.
