chapter 12~ Question #2

An example I’ve experienced using collaborative conflict has to do with my sorority, once again. We have an annual budget and we are all responsible for paying for our monthly dues so that the house and each member are able to run and be involved as much as possible. Deciding on the final budget takes a lot of time, energy, and commitment on all ends of our house, from our national head quarters to our advisors to us as individual members. Girls who live in the house pay different then those out and also use different amenities more then those living out, but we all have a key. It takes us many weeks and many meetings to decide where all our money is going to go and how we are going to dispense it into our certain positions, like social chair or philanthropy (who are in charge of our fundraiser and all our events we do on and outside of campus) we also have alumnae brunches and lots of reimbursements do individual girls who buy new microwaves or curtains for the house. We must also consider the current economic changes and how that will also affect our budget and spending. After several weeks of voting and fixing and sending to headquaters and fixing again we are able to finalize our vote for the annual budget, but only after a lot of hard work on all ends. Also some girls may not feel we need $600 dollars for two dances when we can pinch pennies and put that towards more fundraisers for arthritis research. So in the end we are all satisfied with the results since we were all able to vote and put in input.

In comparison with collaborative conflict resolution, my sorority often has times where competitive conflict resolution comes into play. For example if a girl wants to run for a position in the house, she is asked to fill out a pref sheet which outlines what she will do in the position and her goals for the year, so we can see if she may or may not be suitable for the job based on individual feelings towards what she wants to do with the position. Then we get down to voting and (let’s just say three girls are going up against one another for the spot) those 3 ladies will be asked to leave the room and the chapter then opens discussion on each individual lady with 3 pros and 3 cons (but always ending on a pro) sometimes no one gets any cons and sometimes no one gets any pros, but this way we are all able to find out a little more and make a better decision. But for the 3 girls running they don’t have any say and either win or lose the position. Everyone votes including the 3 ladies, but there isn’t much room for a girl to state her case if there was a really bad con, like constantly missing class.

I was definitely and still am more satisfied with collaborative, yes it takes more time and energy, but I feel there aren’t as many conflicts that can be caused by using this methods as their could be with competitive. Also all parties end up satisfied (most the time) unlike competitive.

chapter 11~ Question #1

Forum is when a full audience participate in a discussion by making short speeches, one at a time in an orderly fashion with one person as moderator. Another way to go about a forum is to have individuals line up in front of a microphone and have the moderator cut them off at the set time limits. A Panel consists of 4-8 people who are in front of an audience. The moderators job in this type of public presentation is to start the meeting, introduce speakers, keep time, and summarize positions. A Colloquium is made up of a slightly smaller group, 3-6 individuals who are picked for their different views. The audience helps to identify, develop, and work through the problem with their participation. In this type of discussion the moderator is to help encourage the audience to participate by welcoming questions and comments and making sure the discussion stays on the correct path. Finally Symposium, a series of 2-6 short speeches discussing the issues behind the problem. Speakers are experts and present prepared and practiced presentations going over complex technical information with the audience. The audience doesn’t interrupt and the speakers are usually well practiced professionals on the subject.

I would prefer the Colloquium method of public presentation, because it is more structured and organize then a forum and panel and you get to hear different views from different types of people on the matter. This allows the audience to see more sides and angles to the problem and possible solutions and so their final decision can be better thought out.

chapter 10~ Question #3

I really liked the concept of openness discussed in this chapter. It is very true that most people are their own worst enemy when it comes to creativity. When a groups discuss and uses this concept then their creativity can grow so much more. People have emotional and safety concerns and are often worried about being shut down or possibly laughed at. When working in a group if all members acknowledge each others ideas or concepts they come up with as if it could be a real possibly solution and not just shut them down or say something along the line of that’s wrong or lame or so on then group members won’t feel uncomfortable throwing out ideas and the brand storming process can sore to even high heights and become more successful then when they were only listening to ideas inside the box. This will also work in the classroom. Teachers often say there is no wrong answer yet students still giggle sometimes or smirk when a wrong answer is thrown out. But I’ve noticed in classes where all answers really are analyzed, out discussions can get so much deeper and we learn much more as a class.

chapter 10~ Question #2

Requirement for conformity, expectation of practicality, expected arenas proofs, reliance on statistical proofs, dependence on generalizations are some creative barriers organizations and individuals must over come. These can all keep groups from being creative because they all restrict creativity by trying to keep you in one train of thought rather then thinking out side the box. I often experience many of these when working in groups and it isn’t always the group’s fault or even one individuals. Society and taught us to think in a certain way and to and we get into habits or routines and get stuck in them which doesn’t leave any room to grow our creativity. I like how the book talked about bringing people together with different skills, ideas, and values in organizations rather then having a group or work environment with similar people who have similar skills and values. By mixing it up a bit with a variety of people who have a variety of skills, groups can come up with new ideas more easily and break traditional frames of thinking.

Chapter 10~ Question #1

My sorority came up with a creative way to solve conflicts within the sorority. We sit in a circle and our advisor will state the main issue and then when girls wish to voice their opinions on the subject or how they feel about someone, they are given a panda bear (indicating they have the floor) and may indirectly say how they feel with out using specific names. This way everyone is able to talk it out one at a time but it isn’t ever an attack on one individual. We also have our advisor there to “referee” and make sure everyone follows the agreed upon rules.

This involves learning and trial and error, because we tried many other methods before coming up with this one, which worked the best and solved conflicts most efficiently of them all. This methods involved parts of previously used methods, and combined worked really well. The use of the panda bear to symbolize speaking privilege/power was a new idea we hadn’t thought of before. For one, its very calming to hold a stuffed panda bear when you are upset or irritated or have really strong feelings on a subject, the fluffyness and cuddle power are enough to relax anyone. Second our houses “mascot” I guess would be the right name, is a panda bear.

chapter 15~ Question #3

I found the concept of reduced normative social pressure within CMC groups very interesting. I have never really thought about the differences between f3f groups and CMC groups in the social pressure aspect. I myself feel prejudged or extra pressure put on me when I am in a f2f group because often times people (even if they don’t mean to) will make assumptions about others in the group based on their appearance, gender, race. CMC groups eliminate this almost altogether and I also began to think about how people in groups won’t always express their true feelings on a subject or even give ideas and input as much because of the reaction they could get (even if they don’t get a bad reaction, its still nerve racking to speak in groups) And the CMC the pressure is reduced and allows everyone to participate without feeling like they are going to be cut off, interrupted, or completely shut down. Of course members may still not agree with you and your ideas but its not as brash when your reading a message or chatting its not as harsh to read a disagreement or rejection as it is to hear someone say it to your face. Also CMC allows for one to contemplate before responding but with f2f you don’t have as much time to think before you speak and things can get nasty fast.

chapter 15~ Question #2

With a large group, communication could be difficult depending on the method of CMC being used. For example if everyone was in a chat session or even a conference call at the same time and more then 4 or even 5 people were involved then the conversation could get very disorganized with people talking over one another or not answering a question fast enough through typing or, with chatting, the conversation could change topic faster then some participates can keep up. As for anonymity, I believe this could be very beneficial to CMC groups because you wouldn’t really know anyone’s race, age, gender, style, sexual preference and so on. The people in the group wouldn’t have to worry about being prejudged as much because it isn’t as easy to judge the book by the cover when you can’t see the cover only the name of the book or rather person, which in some cases may not even be their real name.

Chapter 15~ Question #1

One of the biggest differences between CMC and F2F is the fact that with F2F you can read a person’s body language where as with CMC it is impossible unless your using something like skype but even then its delayed and harder to catch little gestures. I will always prefer F2F because of this difference. With CMC, for example, you could be text up a cute boy or girl, and think they are really into you, BUT they could be with another person literally while you guys are texting (we all know this is very common) or they could be interested in you only as a friend but since you can’t see their body language or facial gestures it makes it much more difficult to interpret the message and the relationship that is or is not being built. Although both methods are valuable forms of communication, I feel CMC makes it harder for one to create on continue with meaningful relationships with family, friends, and spouses. With f2f you can touch the person, hug them, laugh together, and looking at a smile will always work better then trying to make someone smile over a phone or chat. I mean how many long distance relationships, even some friendships, work compared too those who see each other daily or weekly?