The accommodation style is the less powerful individuals such as employees are expected to accommodate more often and to a greater degree than more powerful individuals such as bosses. I will sometimes use the accommodation style when I am with my family. Whenever we all want to go do something whether it be going to the movies or going for a hike I will suggest things to do or find something we can all agree on. I will usually just do what they want to do as long as I get to hang out with them. I also use it with friends when I do not know what sounds fun to go do and I will again just agree to what sounds best.
The compromising style is attempting to resolve a conflict by giving up on something to get something in return. A time when I used the comprising style was when I went to a music festival my friends and we all were not able to see get to see the all of the bands we all wanted to see so we all made a compromise. We would first see all the bands that we all wanted to see all together. From there we decided based on who has seen which band how many times and if they wanted to see a band they have been dying to see or just
…show more content…
Whenever an argument starts to break out with either my friends, family, or it could even be someone I have recently met. I do not argue with people very often but when it does happen I usually try to either avoid it entirely or stop when it just starts to get completely ridiculous. I am a person who does not like conflict so I try to avoid as much as I possibly can. A lot of the time arguing is pointless and not fun at all. I time a time when I used the avoiding style was when I was arguing with my parents about where should we all go for break. They were mainly picking my sister’s side and I was trying to argue my case but after about 10 to 15 minutes it began to become a dumb argument and I just left saying I wasn’t going to argue anymore and we will figure it out later
The definition of a compromise is an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. The conflict of compromising is that is shows the weakness in a leader. If a leader does not show compromise ever, they are bound to fail one time or another. When leaders do show compromise in certain situations, they tend to be more successful. In “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar,” by William Shakespeare, it is necessary for leaders to compromise in order to succeed.
A compromise is when two or more parties in disagreement reach an agreement that does not give all sides exactly what they want, but enough of what they want so that they can be happy. Compromise is the best possible solution to a conflict however it does not always work. One needs only to look at situations such as the Bosnia-Herzegovina to see that. During the events prior to the American Civil War, many different compromises were made in an attempt to impede the growing disagreements. However this merely prolonged the inevitable. The differences between North and South were far to great and compromise did not stand a chance at preventing the impending conflict. This was most clearly shown in the ways in which the three main compromises, the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, failed.
Compromise, according to the New Oxford Dictionary, is an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. Throughout history, favored compromises, as well as controversial ones, have been made, such as the Compromise of 1850. Arguably one of the most debated compromises in the history of America, the Compromise was first proposed by Henry Clay on January 29, 1850, (pbs.org), and was intended to ease the growing tensions between the North and South. While successful, it was only a temporary solution. In retrospect, this particular agreement did more harm than good.
Decisions are difficult, especially between two opposing parties determined to get their way. Most likely, some sort of agreement called a compromise is reached. Compromise, a seemingly perfect concept, can be an essential part of success as it resolves conflicts on both an international or personal level and benefits both sides of any argument. However, if this tool is used incorrectly by means of overuse, underuse, or simply wrong timing, that perfection turns into detriment.
Assimilation is when you take new information or experiences and include them into your existing perceptions and understandings. This means that when you have new information you make sense of it from the information you already had. Accommodation is when you take new information and alter or even change the existing information you had. For example, say you have a friend who you have always known to be super nice to everyone, and one day you see her yelling and being mean to someone in the hallway. If you were to use the assimilation process, you could forgive the girls behavior, believing she might of just had a bad day. If you were to use accommodation, you might change your opinion on the girl and think maybe she isn't as nice as you thought she
Negotiations styles are scholastically recognized as being broken down into two general categories and those are distributive bargaining styles and integrative negotiation styles. Distributive bargaining styles of negotiation are understood to be a competitive type of negotiation. “Distributive bargaining, also known as positional bargaining, negotiating zero-sum, competitive negotiation, or win-lose negotiation, is a type or style of negotiation in which the parties compete for the distribution of a fixed amount of value” (Business Blog Reviews, 2011). This type of negotiation skill or style approach might be best represented in professional areas such as the stock market where there is a fixed goal in mind or even in a garage sale negotiation where the owner would have a specific value of which he/she would not go below. In contrast, an integrative negotiation approach/style is that of cooperative bargaining, or win-win types ...
Felix Frankfurter once said, “the most constructive way of resolving conflicts is to avoid them.” which means evading the conflicts is the best way to resolve the conflicts.In the other words, if we don’t want to face the conflicts, we should stay away from them and try to not get involved in.However, in my personal opinion, I disagree with this quote since the conflicts will still surround us even though we try to avoid them. Moreover, if the conflicts are initiated by us or just comes to us, to avoid the conflicts will not help us to resolve them.
Negotiating styles are grouped into five types; Competing, Collaborating, Comprising, Avoidance, and Accommodating (Colburn, 2010). Even though it is possible to exhibit different parts of the five types of negation styles in different situations, can see that my tendencies seem to default to, Compromise and Accommodating. In reviewing the course work and reviewing my answers for Questionnaire 1 and 5, I find that the data reflects the same assumption. The accommodating profile is one where relationship perseveration is everything and giving what the other side wants is the route to winning people over. Accommodators are well liked by their colleagues and opposite party negotiators (Colburn, 2010). When analyzing my accommodating tenancy in negations, I find often it is easier to give into the demands when they are within a reasonable range. I often consider it the part of providing a high level of customer service. It has been my experience that continued delaying and not coming to an agreement in a topic will only shorten the window in which you will have to meet the request since. The cons to this style are by accommodating highly competitive styles the accommodator can give up to much ground in the process. “Giving away value too easily too early can signal to your negotiation counterpart that you've very deep pockets, and your gift is just a taster of bigger and better gifts to come”. The other negations type I default to is compromising. Compromising “often involves splitting the difference; usually resulting in an end position of about half way between both parties’ opening positions” (Colburn, 2010). In the absence of a good rationale or balanced exchanged concessions, half way betwee...
As a child we learned how to share and be fair with others when we never wanted to but never knew why it occurred. When I was growing up I eventually learned that being fair or in other words having compromise can help find a middle ground and both can feel satisfied with the outcome at the end. Compromising is way to cooperate with others in a stressful environment and learning to be around them can be difficult. Conflicts are bound to occur. When hearing the word
I run into this problem a fair amount, I never want to hurt anyone’s feelings or cause them to dislike me because of something I said. However, when you are thrown into a heat of the moment discussion you can say something that they don't like and you know that if you were to have avoided this problem then they would still like you. Even if the confrontation was treated calmly and respectfully, the other person may have been aggravated by what was being said at them. It's especially scary when you must face this problem against a group of people. You no longer have a one on one scenario, now you must face multiple people that are all on the same side and could all not like you
Many negative people feed off of negative energy; that is, they like to argue. Most people know at least one person who appears to truly enjoy arguing. While healthy debate and constructive criticism is important to personal development, there is a fine line between constructive and destructive. Negative people traditionally like to argue, so to avoid feeding negative energy it is important not to argue. One can accomplish this by stating their opinion and needs, then moving on from the discussion. Most negative people also like to dwell on issues. By not entertaining the argument, a positive perso...
... understand the other side’s point of view. All parties are able to identify areas of agreement and disagreement, creatively explore and evaluate alternatives, and select solutions to which they are all committed. Though collaborating is the only win-win approach preferred to resolving conflicts in many situations, there is time and place for the other styles as they may better meet the needs of the situation.
It is very important to try and keep a civil tone because many times how you voice things may lead to different reactions. Yelling and screaming at people will not always help get your point across. Many times it makes things worse because it becomes hard to listen and understand what you are trying to explain. Getting into heated arguments with one’s spouse or partner is very common. I understand because I have been in plenty arguments with my boyfriend. Usually it leads to us yelling at one another in which leads to nothing. In the end we never solve the problem and end up more frustrated with one another. In this lesson I learned that talking in a civil tone actually makes the conversation smoother. It allows both of us get our message across so we can have a productive
When in a conflict I usually end up avoiding the conflict all together. I portrayed this when my mother got in the argument about me transferring to a different school I stopped talking to her for a few days. I avoided the topic at all costs. I have not expressed to my mom that it is important for me to get her support to transfer and feel like she understands why it will be a better school for me to attend. My mothers conflict management style she has always used is competing. She will never allow herself to not win the conversation. Often her reasoning for why she is right is because she is older and my mother, because of this she feels like because of this she will always know what the best thing for me is. When we are talking she seeks control of the conversation and tends to ignore my feelings of why I feel a certain
Negotiation approaches are generally described as either distributive or integrative. At the heart of each strategy is a measurement of conflict between each party’s desired outcomes. Consider the following situation. Chris, an entrepreneur, is starting a new business that will occupy most of his free time for the near future. Living in a fancy new development, Chris is concerned that his new business will prevent him from taking care of his lawn, which has strict requirements under neighborhood rules. Not wanted to upset his neighbors, Chris decides to hire Matt to cut his grass.