In chapter 16, Jacobs et al. address problem situations that may cause conflict in a group and get it off track. Choose one of these and shed further lig

Group Issues and Conflict

Must be 300 words 2 scholarly sources that will be attached to this assignment y

In chapter 16, Jacobs et al. address problem situations that may cause conflict in a group and get it off track. Choose  one of these and shed further light on why this is a common issue and why/how it may lead to conflict by drawing upon Forsyth, chapter 13. In your replies, add insights to your classmates’ posts, both from your personal experience and from the course materials.

,

Transcript

Group Counseling: Strategies and Skills Chapter 15

>> Closing a group session may serve one or more purposes including summarizing and highlighting the main points. Reinforcing commitments made by individual members. And checking for unfinished business from the session. In this first example, the leader demonstrates the use of rounds to close the session. Note leader ties things together for the members.

>> So I really think we covered a lot today. I mean I know this topic of test anxiety has really been a big deal for all of you and I think, you know, I hope you've learned a lot about your test anxiety. But I tell you what, since we're getting ready to sort of bring things to a close for today, I want to start with Eric and come around this way. Just briefly what is one thing that you learned today or that stood out to you about dealing with test anxiety?

>> I think one of the things that definitely stood out to me was I got to stop telling myself that my work is on the line with every test. I think that right there is going to help me a lot.

>> Okay great. Yeah that whole idea about how it's coming from what you tell yourself about the test. You know, I mentioned to you all earlier that I learned that idea when I was in my 20s. And it really helped me with a lot of different things. It can certainly help you with test anxiety. So good. Jen, how about you?

>> That's what I'm taking away.

>> Is that —

>> Is that ability to shut it down. To stop all of that that's going on in my head —

>> Okay.

>> — before I go into the test.

>> Good. Good. Morgan, how about for you?

>> Mine is stay in the big girl seat and not being over there —

>> And out of that little chair. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That helps me a lot thinking especially when I'm getting ready to take a test. Get in the adult seat. Don't be in your child about it. You know that you're going to get the better result. The result that you want if you stay in that thinking seat.

>> Just what you were talking about and I agree with those guys about that negative self talk. And I think I'm going to try to start paying more attention to it. And even how you said like writing it down like I think I'm going to try that, you know, for the next test.

>> Yeah really giving thought to what you're telling yourself about that test or about that situation.

>> Yeah.

>> Good and Jane, how about for you?

>> I'm like Fran. I want to work on my negative self talk and get out of that chair too.

>> Okay. Good. Good. Okay. Well I appreciate you all sharing and I hope that's been helpful. You know everything, your self talk, standing out of the small chair, and hopefully the next test you take will go a lot more smoothly.

>> Thanks.

>> Thank you.

>> Next we see the closing of a third session of a divorce group. The leader uses appreciations and wishes since the session has been very productive and the members seem to be really care about each other.

>> Okay it's about time to start closing and to wrapping group up for the day. And you know we've had such a good group today. It just seems supportive and cohesive and connected. I just wondered if maybe we could close and add something to our close today. I'd like you to, of course, share what stood out to you but I'd like you to add an appreciation that you'd like to share to other group members or if there's a group or a wish for group members. Jen, you good with that? Okay.

>> That's perfect. That's perfect for me because I have so much appreciation today that I was able to share about dating a married man. First off, I thought that was going to be a huge issue for everyone and then he's so much older than I am. I thought you guys would really judge me about that. And you guys didn't and that just — that made my day. I feel like I can be more open now in group and I really like that. And thank you Morgan especially. Yeah.

>> No problem.

>> And again, that's real important. Group is a safe, supportive environment. So that's a lot to be appreciative for. Anybody else have any wishes or appreciations they'd like to share?

>> I do want to wish Jen that you will stop beating up on yourself and the divorce was not your fault.

>> Thank you.

>> Okay. Yeah, someone else.

>> My wish for you is —

>> Mine's appreciation but I just really appreciate how supportive, you know, the [inaudible] everybody's been. I really look forward to coming to group because of that and just knowing that this is going to be such a safe, supportive environment.

>> I got a wish for J.P.

>> Go Fran, shoot.

>> My wish would just be that you'd be able to get out more and just you know, have fun and just kind of enjoy yourself.

>> Thanks and that just builds on that kindness and supportiveness. It's not that you — maybe even if you can't get out today or tomorrow, you just have that support here, that's a wish for the group and other group members — is that a wish you can have for J.P. as well?

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah that's great. Okay. Well I know my wish for you is that you just continue to grow and learn and heal and we all just participate and support each other through this process. And that's — how about what stood out to you today? What stood out from group today that you're going to take out of here with you when you leave? What stood out to you today, J.P.?

>> Just being able to like share everything and especially basically the wish that you guys gave me. That's probably what's going to stand out the most.

>> Okay.

>> Sometimes members wait until the very end of the session to bring up their issue. Watch how the leader deals with this. The leader is clear that the group is entering the closing phase of the session.

>> I think we need to close. So what I want to do is get a round of sort of what stood out to you? What are you going to be thinking about between now and next week? Something like that. So —

>> I'll go. I really want to work on like reducing my worry. Talking about that was really helpful to me and —

>> Yeah, I thought we did a lot of good work on that. And you do not have to worry. You do not have to. So I want you all to hear me say that. I see you smiling, Jen.

>> I got a lot of being able to talk about mom and some of the issues that were going on there. So —

>> Yeah okay. That's good.

>> And can I bring up something? Well —

>> Is it a long something?

>> Kind of sitting here it's been in the back of my head and like now I think I want to talk about it.

>> Is it something pretty heavy? The reason why I say that is we only have about 2 or 3 more minutes.

>> It has to do with my past like —

>> Okay it's — I'd say we can't do it now. I'll talk to you a little bit afterwards if you want to.

>> Yeah.

>> And will you — I hope you'll bring it up. I know you got the courage but I know you all– we got to stop.

>> Okay.

>> Okay. How about others of you real quick?

>> I think the one thing that stood out to me is the thing about self talk. Like what I tell myself.

>> Okay that's good.

>> That's my feeling.

>> What has stood out to you if you had to capture it?

>> I guess just like hearing everyone else share and so it kind of helped me want to share.

>> Let me get you, Jen, and then we'll be done.

>> It's that whole thought you don't have to worry. It's pretty big.

>> Okay. Okay. We'll see you all next week. Okay and let's you and I talk. Okay.

>> The closing phase is a very important part of any group session. Unfortunately many leaders don't watch the time well. And they let members bring up new material during the closing phase and then have to end the group abruptly or without a closing at all. It's very important that you make sure that you have adequate time to close your sessions.

,

Group Dynamics

Donelson Forsyth

Forsyth, D. (2018).  Group Dynamics (7th ed.). Cengage Learning US.  https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9798214344799

Forsyth: Chapter 13

Chapter 13. Conflict

Rare is the group—whether team, committee, club, or even best friends—that avoids, at all times, conflict. Conflicts arise from many sources, as disagreements over minor and major issues, personality conflicts, and power struggles cause once close collaborators to become hostile adversaries. Because conflict is a ubiquitous aspect of group life, it must be managed to minimize its negative effects.

What is conflict and its causes?

Why does conflict escalate?

How can group members manage their conflict?

Is conflict an unavoidable evil or a necessary good?

Chapter Outline

The Roots of Conflict

Winning: Conflict and Competition

Sharing: Conflict over Resources

Controlling: Conflict over Power

Working: Task and Process Conflict

Liking and Disliking: Relationship Conflicts

Confrontation and Escalation

Uncertainty → Commitment

Perception → Misperception

Soft Tactics → Hard Tactics

Reciprocity → Retaliation

Irritation → Anger

Few → Many

Conflict Resolution

Commitment → Negotiation

Misperception → Understanding

Hard Tactics → Cooperative Tactics

Retaliation → Forgiveness

Anger → Composure

Many → Few

The Value of Conflict: Redux

Chapter Review

Resources

Jobs versus Sculley: When Group Members Turn against Each Other

It was a time before the iPad, iPhone, and iMac. Apple Inc. had started strong under the leadership of Steve Jobs, but now it was struggling to hold its own during a downturn in sales of technology and software. Jobs and the executive board decided they needed a more traditional chief executive officer (CEO) with a background in business. They picked John Sculley, president of PepsiCo, hoping that he would stabilize Apple, improve efficiency, and increase sales.

All worked well, for a time. Jobs and Sculley admired each other’s strengths as leaders and visionaries, and they conferred constantly on all matters of production and policy. But they did not see eye-to-eye on key issues of corporate goals. Their working relationship dissolved into a series of disagreements, each one more problematic than the last. Both men played central roles as leaders in the company, but their differences in direction, vision, and style were disruptive. As the conflict over Jobs’ pet project, the Macintosh (predecessor of the iMac), reached a peak, Sculley asked the executive board to strip Jobs of much of his authority. The group did so, reluctantly (Linzmayer, 2004).

Jobs did not go quietly into the night. He met with each board member individually, to win approval for his plan to fire Sculley in a corporate coup. He waited to spring his plan when Sculley was traveling in China, but Sculley was tipped off by one of the board members. Sculley cancelled his trip, called a board meeting, and confronted Jobs:

“It’s come to my attention that you’d like to throw me out of the company, and I’d like to ask if that’s true.”

Jobs’ answer: “I think you’re bad for Apple, and I think you’re the wrong person to run this company…. You really should leave this company…. You don’t know how manufacturing works. You’re not close to the company. The middle managers don’t respect you.”

Sculley, his voice rising in anger, replied, “I made a mistake in treating you with high esteem.… I don’t trust you, and I won’t tolerate a lack of trust.”

Sculley then polled the board members. Did they support Sculley or Jobs? All of them declared great admiration for Jobs, but they felt that the company needed Sculley’s experience and leadership. Jobs then rose from the table and said, “I guess I know where things stand,” before bolting from the room (Sculley, 1987, pp. 251–252). Jobs later resigned from the company he had founded. He would return, eventually, but not until Sculley had resigned.

Jobs versus Sculley was one of corporate America’s most spectacular conflicts, but it was no anomaly. Groups of all kinds experience periods of disagreement, discord, and friction. Good friends disagree about their weekend plans and end up exchanging harsh words. Families argue over finances, rules, and responsibilities. Struggling work teams search for a person who can be blamed for their inefficiency. College classes, angered by their professors’ methods of teaching, lodge formal complaints with the dean. Rock bands split up due to artistic differences. When conflict occurs in a group, the actions or beliefs of one or more members of the group are unacceptable to and resisted by one or more of the other group members. Members stand against each other rather than in support of each other (see Dreu, Aaldering, & Saygi, 2015; Greer & Dannals, 2017, for reviews).

Why do allies sometimes turn into adversaries? The process begins when the group’s routine interactions are disrupted by some sort of initial disagreement, aggravation, or irritation (see Figure 13.1). Many disagreements are so minor that the group resolves them easily, but others create a lack of alignment in the group that triggers the conflict cycle. The conflict intensifies as discussion gives way to arguing, emotions take the place of logic, and the once unified group splits into factions (conflict escalation). Eventually, the conflict peaks and begins to dissipate (conflict de-escalation) and the members seek and implement a way to resolve their differences (conflict resolution). The board of directors at Apple, for example, decided to support Sculley and so they demoted Jobs—a rather severe means of dealing with the dispute. This chapter focuses on conflict inside a group—between two or more members—or intragroup conflict. A second form of conflict—conflict between groups or intergroup conflict—is examined in the next chapter.

13-1. The Roots of Conflict

Conflict is everywhere. When the members of 71 groups were asked, “Did your group experience any conflict?” they identified 424 instances of interpersonal irritation (Wall & Nolan, 1987). When Robert Freed Bales and his colleagues used the interaction process analysis (IPA) to record group interactions, some of the groups they observed spent as much as 20% of their time making hostile or negative comments (Bales & Hare, 1965). A researcher who arranged for groups to work on a frustrating, impossible-to-solve task was startled by the intensity of the conflict that overtook the groups. In one particularly hostile group, members averaged 13.5 antagonistic comments per minute (French, 1941).

Most people, if given the choice, avoid situations that are rife with conflict (Roloff & Wright, 2009). Yet conflict seems to be an unavoidable consequence of life in groups. When individuals are sequestered away from other people, their ambitions, goals, and perspectives are their own concern. But a group, by its very nature, brings individuals into contact with other people—people who have their own idiosyncratic interests, motivations, outlooks, and preferences. As these individuals interact with one another, their diverse interests and preferences can pull them in different directions. Instead of working together, they compete against one another. Instead of sharing resources and power, members selfishly claim more than their fair share. Instead of accepting each other for who they are, members treat those they like better than those they dislike.

13-1a. Winning: Conflict and Competition

Before Sculley joined Apple, his success or failure in manufacturing and marketing did nothing to influence Jobs and vice versa. But when they both worked at Apple, they became interdependent, for they could influence each other’s outcomes through individual and coordinated action (Schelling, 1960). At first, their relationship was based on cooperation: if Jobs succeeded Sculley succeeded, and vice versa. But eventually this cooperative relationship gave way to competition: The success of one meant the other would fail. Social psychologist Morton Deutsch (1949b) calls these two types of relationships promotive and contrient interdependence.

Competition versus Cooperation

Competition can be a positive experience. When, for example, we choose to compete in athletic events and contests we often experience elevated motivation and positive emotions such as excitement and the thrill of victory (Franken & Brown, 1995). However, when a situation calls for cooperation and teamwork but devolves into competition, then the positive benefits of competition are few. Instead of collaborating, we become rivals, striving to outperform each other. We no longer take pride in others’ accomplishments; in fact, we sometimes try to block their progress and disrupt their work. When we compete we seek rewards and protect our resources—we become greedy—but we also become wary, even fearful, of others (Kelley et al., 2003). Competition even changes how we talk to others in our group. When competing we make fewer positive but more negative remarks, and we are less likely to discuss shared priorities (Scheia, Rognes, & Shapiro, 2011).

Cooperation and competition trigger different motivational systems: one promotes sharing, trust, and collaboration, and the other promotes selfishness, suspicion, and sequestration. The two orientations are evident when social neuroscientists study individuals who are cooperating and competing (Decety et al., 2004). Both forms of interaction recruited areas of the brain that have been implicated in the production of behavioral choices, particularly in uncertain circumstances. The cooperating brain, however, shows more activity in regions associated with the processing of social rewards and overall psychological satisfaction (the orbitofrontal cortex). In contrast, the competing brain is busy intuiting the motivations of other people (medial prefrontal cortex) and distinguishing between the self and others (right inferior parietal cortex). Other research even suggests that individuals who are competing with others show, in some cases, elevated activity in the amygdala, an area of the brain thought to be responsible for feelings of fear (Bhatt et al., 2012; Fermin et al., 2016; Tsoi et al., 2016).

Mixed-Motive Situations

Few situations involve pure cooperation or pure competition; the motive to compete is often mixed with the motive to cooperate. Sculley wanted to gain control over the Mac division but he needed Jobs’ help with product development. Jobs valued Sculley’s organizational expertise but he felt that Sculley misunderstood the company’s goals. The men found themselves in a mixed-motive situation—they were tempted to compete and cooperate at the same time.

Researchers use a specialized technique known as the prisoner’s dilemma game (PDG) to study mixed-motive situations. Imagine you and your friend Steve have been arrested and the police are questioning you both—but in separate rooms. The police give you a choice: You can remain silent or you can confess and implicate Steve. But they also explain that if you and Steve remain silent, then you will both go free. If both of you confess, you and Steve will receive moderate sentences. But if you confess and Steve does not, then you receive a minimal sentence and Steve will receive the maximum sentence. And vice versa. If Steve confesses and you do not, you get the long sentence. Should you confess or remain silent (Luce & Raiffa, 1957; Poundstone, 1992)?

The dilemma turns into an experimental test of conflict and cooperation when jail time is converted into points or money (see Figure 13.2). If you were playing this experimental game with a partner named Steve, you would both be asked to pick one of two options, labeled C and D. Option C is the cooperative choice. If you both pick C, then you both will earn money. Option D is the competitive choice (defection). If only one of you defects by picking D, that player will make money and the other will lose money. But if you both pick D, both will lose money. Figure 13.2 shows the payoff matrix that summarizes how much money the two of you will win or lose in each of the four possible situations:

You choose C and Steve chooses C, both earn 50¢.

You choose C and Steve chooses D, you lose 50¢ and Steve earns $1.

You choose D and Steve chooses C, you earn $1 and Steve loses 50¢.

You choose D and Steve chooses D, both lose 25¢.

So you are drawn to cooperate (option C), but fear that Steve may defect (option D). You and Steve usually cannot communicate with each other, and so you face an uncertain situation. In the single-trial version, you only make your choice once. In the iterated version, you play multiple rounds. Each pair of choices is termed a trial or round.

Which option do most people pick in the PDG? Some cooperate and some compete, with the proportion of cooperators to competitors varying depending on the relationships between members, their expectations, personalities, and a variety of other factors (Weber & Messick, 2004). If, for example, the gains for competing relative to cooperating are increased (e.g., people would earn $2 instead of only $1 by competing in the game shown in Figure 13.2), people compete more. When people are told they are playing the “Wall Street Game,” they compete more than if the simulation is called the “Community Game” (Gilovich & Ross, 2015). If the instructions refer to the other person as the “opponent,” then competition increases, but the label “partner” shrinks competitiveness (Burnham, McCabe, & Smith, 2000). And, if people know they will be playing multiple trials against the same person, then cooperation increases (Van Lange, Klapwijk, & Van Munster, 2011). In one study, for example, people played the PDG in large groups of 30 to 50 people. The game randomly paired people together on each trial, but the odds of being paired with the same person repeatedly were varied experimentally from low to high. The greater the chances of playing with a person in the future, the more cooperative players became (Bó, 2005).

Behavioral Assimilation

When people play the iterated PDG, their choices are usually influenced by their partner’s prior choices. When playing with someone who consistently makes cooperative choices, people tend to cooperate themselves. Those who encounter competitors, however, soon adopt this strategy, and they, too, begin to compete. Gradually, then behavioral assimilation occurs as group members’ choices become synchronized over time.

The norm of reciprocity is to blame (or credit) for this assimilative process. As noted in Chapter 3, the norm of reciprocity sustains mutuality in exchange: When people who help you later need help, the norm of reciprocity urges you to help them in return. However, the norm of reciprocity also implies that people who harm you are deserving of harm themselves. The converse of “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” is “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” If one group member criticizes the ideas, opinions, or characteristics of another, the victim of the attack will feel justified in counterattacking unless some situational factor legitimizes the aggression of the former (Falk & Fischbacher, 2006).

Unfortunately, negative reciprocity tends to be stronger than positive reciprocity. Although people consistently return kindness with kindness and thereby maintain equity in their relationship and reward positive behavior, they are even more likely to punish an unkindness with hostility. A cooperative person who runs into a competitive partner is more likely to begin to compete before the competitive person begins to cooperate, so as a result a partner turns into an opponent faster than an opponent turns into an ally (Kelley & Stahelski, 1970a, 1970b, 1970c). This asymmetry in reciprocity is even greater when members believe others’ acted deliberately. A person who intentionally treats another person in a positive way may receive a positive response back, but when a person deliberately mistreats another person, a negative payback is assured (Offerman, 2002).

Social Value Orientation

When situational factors align to create competition between people, conflict becomes more likely. But competition does not result only from situational causes, for some people are quicker to compete than others. Jobs and Sculley, for example, differed in many ways. Jobs was born in 1955 in San Francisco, California. He never finished college, and he was a practicing Zen Buddhist. John Sculley was born in 1939, but as a child lived in Bermuda, Brazil, and Europe. He attended Brown University and received an MBA from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. But the two were alike in one respect: They were both highly competitive.

Are You Proself or Prosocial?

Each of us differs in our orientation to cooperation and competition. Paul Van Lange and his colleagues (1997) developed the social value orientation scale to measure these differences between people. It uses a “decomposed” version of the PDG that asks respondents to choose between three options that yield different consequences for themselves and for another person—labeled the other.

Instructions. Imagine that you have been randomly paired with another person, the other. Both you and other will be picking between three options labeled A, B, and C. These different options produce different amounts of points for you and for other. For example:

  Choice A Choice B Choice C

You get 500 500 550

Other gets 100 500 300

In this example, when you pick A, you receive 500 points and the other gets 100. Picking B yields 500 points for both of you. If you select C, you receive 550 points, and the other receives 300. Before you begin making choices, remember there are no right or wrong answers. Just circle the choice (A, B, or C) you most prefer.

Problem 1 Choice A Choice B Choice C

You get 480 480 540

Other gets 480 80 280

Problem 2 Choice A Choice B Choice C

You get 500 500 560

Other gets 500 100 300

Problem 3 Choice A Choice B Choice C

You get 520 520 580

Other gets 520 120 320

Problem 4 Choice A Choice B Choice C

You get 490 500 560

Other gets 490 100 300

Scoring. The complete SVO scale includes 12 of these choices; only a subset of the items were presented here. However, if you consistently picked option A, then you can be considered prosocial. If you consistently picked B, then you are proself. And if you picked C: you are individualistic. Do your choices match your own intuitions about how you respond in mixed-motive situations?

What makes one person more competitive than another? According to social values orientation (SVO) theory, our willingness to cooperate or compete is determined by two sets of values: our concern for our own outcomes and our concern for other people’s outcomes. Proself individuals seek to maximize personal gains; when they play the PDG, they want to earn as many points as they can. Prosocials, in contrast, are also concerned with others’ gains and losses; they want to maximize others’ outcomes (Van Lange et al., 2007). When both orientations are taken into account, SVO theory identifies four distinct orientations:

Individualists are proself and concerned only with their own outcomes. They neither interfere with nor assist other group members, for they focus only on their own outcomes. Th

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.