This topic contains a solution. Click here to go to the answer

Author Question: What principles of supportive communication and supportive listening are violated in this case? ... (Read 97 times)

B

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
What principles of supportive communication and supportive listening are violated in this case?
 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

If you were to change this interaction to make it more productive, what would you change?
 
  What will be an ideal response?



Related Topics

Need homework help now?

Ask unlimited questions for free

Ask a Question
Marked as best answer by a Subject Expert

welcom1000

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
Answer to Question 1

Answer: This case illustrates poor communication between a superior and a subordinate. The following statements violated the following principles of supportive communication:

First statement, by Ron: Tends to be evaluative, will cause defensiveness from the outset. Owns rather than disowns feedback.

Second statement, by Mike: Indicates defensiveness; person oriented; confrontative
approach will produce mutual defensiveness.

Third statement, by Ron: Attempts being problem oriented, validating, and descriptive.

Fourth statement, by Mike: Still person oriented, not problem oriented; global, not specific; nonsupportive listening.

Fifth statement, by Ron: Evaluative rather than descriptive; advising rather than asking for alternatives; implied accusations; nonspecific.

Sixth statement, by Mike: Still defensive; still nonspecific; avoids discussing problem definition or problem solutions.

This case violated nearly every principle of supportive communication. Instead of beginning the conversation with an attitude of joint problem solving, Ron was immediately evaluative and put Mike on the defensive. Mike in turn, never did accept the legitimacy of the meeting and refused to collaborate with Ron in solving the problems.

The interaction could have been more productive if Ron had begun with some validating statements (e.g., compliments, description of successes) to reduce Mike's defensiveness and had relied primarily on descriptive statements rather than evaluative statements. All the burden for change should not necessarily rest with Mike. Ron may need to alter some expectations as well.

Interpersonal hostility almost always takes precedence over task-related issues. Because Mike feels so defensive around Ron, it is unlikely that the task-related problems will be resolved satisfactorily. Therefore, the priority problem is getting Ron and Mike to agree to work to solve the other problems together. This requires attention to the interpersonal relationship first. That is, subsequent discussions should focus on improving the communication process before resuming communication about content issues.

Answer to Question 2

Answer: This case illustrates poor communication between a superior and a subordinate. The following statements violated the following principles of supportive communication:

First statement, by Ron: Tends to be evaluative, will cause defensiveness from the outset. Owns rather than disowns feedback.

Second statement, by Mike: Indicates defensiveness; person oriented; confrontative
approach will produce mutual defensiveness.

Third statement, by Ron: Attempts being problem oriented, validating, and descriptive.

Fourth statement, by Mike: Still person oriented, not problem oriented; global, not specific; nonsupportive listening.

Fifth statement, by Ron: Evaluative rather than descriptive; advising rather than asking for alternatives; implied accusations; nonspecific.

Sixth statement, by Mike: Still defensive; still nonspecific; avoids discussing problem definition or problem solutions.

This case violated nearly every principle of supportive communication. Instead of beginning the conversation with an attitude of joint problem solving, Ron was immediately evaluative and put Mike on the defensive. Mike in turn, never did accept the legitimacy of the meeting and refused to collaborate with Ron in solving the problems.

The interaction could have been more productive if Ron had begun with some validating statements (e.g., compliments, description of successes) to reduce Mike's defensiveness and had relied primarily on descriptive statements rather than evaluative statements. All the burden for change should not necessarily rest with Mike. Ron may need to alter some expectations as well.

Interpersonal hostility almost always takes precedence over task-related issues. Because Mike feels so defensive around Ron, it is unlikely that the task-related problems will be resolved satisfactorily. Therefore, the priority problem is getting Ron and Mike to agree to work to solve the other problems together. This requires attention to the interpersonal relationship first. That is, subsequent discussions should focus on improving the communication process before resuming communication about content issues.




B

  • Member
  • Posts: 570
Reply 2 on: Jul 6, 2018
Great answer, keep it coming :)


daiying98

  • Member
  • Posts: 354
Reply 3 on: Yesterday
Wow, this really help

 

Did you know?

Your chance of developing a kidney stone is 1 in 10. In recent years, approximately 3.7 million people in the United States were diagnosed with a kidney disease.

Did you know?

Common abbreviations that cause medication errors include U (unit), mg (milligram), QD (every day), SC (subcutaneous), TIW (three times per week), D/C (discharge or discontinue), HS (at bedtime or "hours of sleep"), cc (cubic centimeters), and AU (each ear).

Did you know?

Amphetamine poisoning can cause intravascular coagulation, circulatory collapse, rhabdomyolysis, ischemic colitis, acute psychosis, hyperthermia, respiratory distress syndrome, and pericarditis.

Did you know?

Most women experience menopause in their 50s. However, in 1994, an Italian woman gave birth to a baby boy when she was 61 years old.

Did you know?

In the ancient and medieval periods, dysentery killed about ? of all babies before they reach 12 months of age. The disease was transferred through contaminated drinking water, because there was no way to adequately dispose of sewage, which contaminated the water.

For a complete list of videos, visit our video library