Description
Scene 1: As Mayer (2012) discusses, our goal should be to promote the ability of each of our disciplines to advocate for our interests and beliefs in a constructive way. One of the major factors that amplifies our conflict is the presence of one person’s interests at the expense of the other’s. This causes tensions amongst Agalyaa and the rest of the group, but especially Ellie, whom target each other in the primary stages of this conflict. Further, stereotypical assumptions and perceptions of other disciplines are demonstrated in our movie to further escalate the conflict as Agalyaa makes a snide comment about Ellie’s job. The thought bubbles are used to demonstrate Ellie’s feelings of inferiority compared to her friends because she works in a creative field. This helps us understand how assumptions can impede personal relationships and lead to conflict. Additionally, our scenario borrows from Lindner’s (2014) work on the impact of emotions on conflict. Andrea’s emotions demonstrated in this conflict are reflective of Lindner’s (2014) thoughts on emotions being adaptive to socio-cultural influences (i.e., anger stemming from the inequities they observe in the world). Our movie demonstrates each friend’s varying approaches towards conflict. Ellie and Agalyaa have a competing style where Ellie highlights the benefits and need for social media in society, while Agalyaa’s position is contrasting against that. Ellie actively defends social media’s values as she works in media whereas Agalyaa wants to tackle this issue with policies. Their competitive stances add tension, especially when they feel attacked by each other. Andrea and Ladouce have a collaborative style.They work to find a balance amongst the group. They highlight empathy and understanding, encourage open communication and ask questions to clarify perspectives. They focus on the shared values (ex. importance of mental health) to de-escalate and resolve the conflict. Aamena has an avoiding style at the beginning of this conflict due to her desire to remain neutral. Aamena avoids voicing her opinion fully and shifts the conversation away from her by switching the topic, which unintentionally escalates it by bringing up new topics to disagree with. As conflict escalates, Ladouce’s desire to protect the friendship results in another change in topics when she notices the tense body language that follows Agalyaa’s opinion on vaccinations. As Mayer (2012) discusses, this desire to protect others and ourselves from conflict interactions may come from a humane place, but it actually prevents the group from developing their own personal power to engage in conflict effectively (p.74).
Scene 2: Barsky & Wood (2006) emphasize how conflict avoidance neither benefits the avoider nor the other friends. Ladouce’s attempt at trying to distract from the escalating conflict ultimately allows it to fester in scene 2, as the dinner conversation gets heated. Ladouce demonstrates conflict avoidance in scene 2 with her attempts to smooth over this conflict and our movie highlights how this approach fails in this friend group as the conflict prevails.
Conflict is demonstrated in our movie through cognitive (perception), emotional (feeling), and behavioural (action) dimensions because conflict is often oversimplified, and we wanted to showcase its multifacetedness (Mayer, 2012, p.4). Ellie and Agalyaa demonstrate conflict as perception, as they both believe their own interests and values are incompatible with each other. Andrea, Aamena,and Ladouce demonstrate conflict as feeling through emotional intensity, reading body language, and attempts at mediation. Andrea recognises that Agalyaa is frustrated and asks her to slow down and Aamena agrees with Andrea, Agalyaa is disappointed. Agalyaa, a policy analyst, demonstrates a belief of social legitimacy and Mayer (2012) describes this as the belief that her authority is legitimate. She believes that she has a right to enforce decisions and she may, consciously or subconsciously, diminish and undermine others through her words and actions.All of the friends demonstrate conflict as action through focusing on arriving at an outcome with statements that are more aspirational than operational and this results in overlooking the critical components of conflict and the work that needs to be done to address it (Mayer, 2012, p.6). However, Andrea suggests moving forward by actually coming up with ideas to educate, support, and create healthier boundaries which showcases their work towards an actual operational outcome. As explored in module 6, active listening is demonstrated in our conflict as Ladouce prioritizes engaging and understanding by acknowledging perspective, bringing attention to shared concerns and moving away from negative language. Ladouce re-emphasizes the need to discuss solutions together, and demonstrates the transformative approach towards conflict resolution by emphasizing the need to empower each other. This will not only help the friend group resolve this specific conflict, but also future conflicts and puts the responsibility on all group members to work towards a mutually appreciated outcome (Spangler, 2003).
Scene 3: The friend group demonstrates engaging in the constructive conflict process by recognizing that there is conflict, confronting their own tendencies, finding their voice, and being clear about the needs of others and effective solutions (Mayer, 2012 p.73).
Ladouce’s transformative approach empowers the friend group to strengthen their own abilities to resolve conflict, listen, and communicate to come up with solutions through recognizing each other’s value and expanding their ability and willingness to relate to each other, and recognize legitimate concerns (Spangler, 2003). Agalyaa and Ellie who demonstrated tensions during the conflict have demonstrated the value of a transformative approach with empowerment and recognition. Ellie realizes that Agalyaa shares similar goals while Agalyaa acknowledges Ellie’s perspective and experiences. Ultimately, they both grow an appreciation for each and recognize the value they each hold.
The mending of relationships in this conflict helps the group move forward as a collective. Our movie demonstrates Spangler’s (2003) key points relating to the transformative approach that acknowledges our diversity, mutual recognition, and celebrating these small steps that lead to a big difference. This allows us to stay focused on our goal moving forward and has equipped us with the skills that are needed to share our perspectives and explore uncertainties in the future. Gray & Purdy (2018) discuss the importance of partnerships forming to tackle societal problems, promote innovation, and expand governance capabilities. This friend group came to recognize that power is shared, and that everyone’s background is what makes them a valuable asset to diversify our perspectives and tackle the issue at hand. What we believed to be our greatest defect, our various disciplines, was instead our greatest strength. When we learned to communicate effectively and respectfully it allowed for a more nuanced understanding of one another and a productive discussion.
Scene 4: We showcase the process of passing through the four phases of change: sensitisation, exploration, intervention, and evaluation (Curran et al., 2005). We have highlighted the importance of role valuing, and trust in the knowledge of each interdisciplinary member. Roy Lewicki (2003) necessitates boundaries when managing distrust. In this dynamic, there was a lack of trust because of the dynamic of the friend group and this meant that controversial subjects were often avoided. This added to the tension that led to the rise in conflict. In the solution/discussion aspect of our scenario, we focus on establishing trust by setting boundaries between our opinions and our work as we move forward. As explored by Mayer (2012), we resolve our conflict by using our power jointly rather than in opposition to each other. Our movie ends with an ode to Ledarach’s (2003) lens analogy in regards to conflict transformation as we overcome our conflict through recognizing the diversity of our disciplines and the value we each hold. As Ledarach (2003) explains, “one lens is not sufficient to bring all the complexity of the world into focus, all are needed to see the whole”.