1. Conversation
Conversation is the informal exchange of opinions and information for pleasure. It is often regarded as casual or small talk between two or more people.
Conversation is important in any form of relationship. Conversation is not only making small talk, it involves a number of pleasant and intelligent skills.
We need to know how to open conversation, keep it going and bring it to a close.
Our conversational style may indicate our thoughts, feelings and also provide cues to how our remarks are to be interpreted.
Conversational Skills
Conversational skills require the ability to initiate, maintain and close a conversation.
1. Initiating Conversation: Opening a conversation, getting the other person to talk is not always easy. In opening conversation, it is helpful to remember the purpose of the opener. The purpose of conversational opener is (1) to recognize the other party and (2) to say something that will prompt an appropriate response.
The subject matter of a conversational opener is oftentimes of little importance. We have three basic options,
(i) Themselves e.g, Hi My name is .............. I am a student of HRU
(ii) The other person e.g Thats a nice shirt you are have on, where did you get it?
(iii) The situation e.g The weather today is quite hot, isn’t it?
The three can be combined e.g what do you think I should do about the Intercultural Communication paper we have to write next week.
Another helpful conversational opener is the subject matter of the opener. We can state a fact, give an opinion or express a feeling.
(i) Themselves – facts e.g I’m from .....................
(ii) The other person – opinions e.g I really like the color of your jacket
(iii) The situation – feelings e.g How do you feel about being in a class this big.
Failure to start a conversation does not necessarily mean that we are poor conversationalist. Some people are less responsive than others while some may be unavailable to talk because of the press of demand. If a conversational opener is unsuccessful, then we should try another approach or try another person. No matter how tempting the bait is not every cast catches a fish.
2. Maintaining Conversation
After initiating conversation, there will be a transition where by the talk is shifted to a topic or topics which will allow the conversation to continue. We may also decide to break off the conversation and move to a conclusion. If we desire to prolong the conversation, we can do so in several ways.
1. Be more knowledgeable and interesting:- we communicate from our experiences, if we limit our experience , we limit our potential areas of discussion. Knowledge comes from general reading or specific studies. Being informed about current events, international, national and local can easily provide materials for talk.
2. Pay attention to the stories we hear. We need to know how to recount events in a way that engages the attention of others. Stories may be jokes but they do not have to be. Some stories are sobering, others are scary. People enjoy hearing a well-told story even if it is only a minute or two in length.
3. Make appropriate responses to what is being said: Unwarranted conclusions can bring a conversation to an abrupt end.
4. Be sensitive to the feelings expressed by our conversational partners: When we are sympathetic to what the other person is expressing, our conversation is more likely to be successful.
5. Making Self-disclosure:- revealing appropriate information about ourselves helps to build relationship. When one person reveals personal information, the other party will respond in kind.
6. Directing Conversation into new areas:- when we reach the limit of a topic, we introduce a second one much in the same way we opened a conversation initially. For example you can switch from talking about the football team to basketball team if the two people engaged in the conversation are interested in sports.
7. Practice question linking. This involves linking the response of your conversational partner in the form of a question.
8. Use non verbal Cues. Maintaining interpersonal distance shows a person is interested in continuing the exchange. Leaning forward, nodding, eye contacts and facial moods can help to indicate when a person wishes to continue the conversation or ends.
1. CLOSING CONVERSATION
Conversation will eventually reach an ending point no matter how short or long it may be. Sometimes both partners may stop talking and walk away. This type of ending is unsatisfactory.
There are several ways we can end conversation. Here is a list of closing techniques.
a. Recognize the conversation is one way. For example, we can end a conversation by saying “Its been nice talking to you”, “I am glad things worked out for you”, You’ve had some interesting experience”
b. Present a pressing claim. Here you can disclose another committment or interest that should be met. E.g Well, I need to go home, or I have to to go back to the office now or please excuse me I have another appointment.
c. Finish with a farewell:- Goodbye, See you later, Thanks for everything, talk to you again soon, take care etc.
d. Shift position away from the partner
e. Breaking Eye contact
f. Leave taking behaviours. for example, pack your belongings Put on your coat, take out your car keys.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
WORKING IN GROUPS
WORKING IN GROUPS
There are several factors that influence the quality of group work.
a. Informational resources: The better informed members are about the problem they are required to solve the better they are to reach a high quality decision.
b. Quality of Group Efforts: Group members should be careful in checking and rechecking information in other to help them make good decisions. Sloppily done work usually leads to poor decisions and negative consequences.
c. Quality of Thinking: Members need to arrive at appropriate conclusion through carefully thought out decisions based on the available materials and information.
d. Decision Logic: To reach the best decision, members should carefully consider the positive and negative qualities of all available choices and then selecting alternatives that offers the most positive and least negative attributes.
Problem solving procedures:
1. Ineffective problem Solving: This method uses decision making processes that fail to consider information or that thwarts the group process.
a. Autocratic decision making: Here the group leader decides which solution is best and then announces this decision to the group. Members have no option than to go along with the group leaders decision.
b. Minority decision making: Similar to the autocratic decisions, however here, the decision is made by a small number of group members.
c. rushing to judgement: In this situation, the group takes decision without proper investigation and discussions. Group may make this decision because of limited time and fatigue.
d. Mob rule. This is the worst method of group decision making. it is a rush to judgement couple with strong emotions. Usually these decisions create more problems than they solve.
Effective or rational model of problem solving
a. Define the problem
b. Investigate the problem
c. Set criteria for a solution
d. formulate possible solutions
e. Select the best alternatives
f. Put the chosen solution into Effect
g. Decide what happens to the group.
Group Leadership
A leader is somebody who guides and directs others. A leader influences the behavior of others. A leader is that person who is strong willed, forceful and drives the group towards its goal.
An effective group leader is one who is capable of using a number of leadership styles and adopts a style best suited to the needs of the group at any given moment.
Traits of leadership:
1. Vision: Ability to see where the group should go.
2. Direction: Ability to help the group to remain focused to their goals.
3. Mediation: Ability to mediate and balance in group and out group relationship.
CREATION OF LEADERS
Leaders are often assigned to post by rank, election or authority. Military groups have officers, committees have chairs appointed by officials, a board elects one of its own as president.
Generally, leaders are created in the following ways.
a. Appointed Leaders: This is a leader appointed by members of the group
b. Emergent leaders: This is a leader that comes to the fore from the body of the group.
Leadership responsibilities.
1. Group Leaders should be prepared: See to the accomplishment of their tasks and those of the group. Involve in Research, Homework, and devote time to think about the group and its work.
2. Group Leaders need to be sensitive to group needs: They need to know when to encourage or discourage discussions, they need to balance the tensions between task activities and relational activities, maintain groups focus, and motivate the group at all times.
LEADERSHIP STYLES
1. Authoritarian: This is a structured, centralized style where leaders exercise tight control over group’s activities. This style is used when time is limited, group members are disoriented, and members trust the leader and when group leaders have the power to enforce decisions. Examples of roles that involve authoritarian leadership styles are, military, quasi military, teachers of small children, tour guides and crew chiefs.
2. Democratic: This style involves the leader making consultation with the group and after hearing its views, makes a decision. A democratic leader is not one who submits every issues to a vote of the group but rather is one who allows the group to express opinions about the problems to be solved. Final responsibility for the decision, however rests on with the leader.
3. Consensus Seeking: In this mode, the group leader is regarded as “first among equals” than possessing more power and rank than others. A consensus seeking leader is one who functions as a discussion leader and mediator, and summarizer. The leader elicits opinions from the group, tries to help discover a common ground for the individual concerns of members, and then makes sure all understand to what they have agreed. A consensus seeking style works best when members are informed, willing to interact, and flexible enough to make concessions in order to reach and agreement.
4. Laissez-faire: The last style of leadership is known as laissez-faire. this style is translated as “ Let the people do as they please”. The leader does little or nothing to influence the group’s decisions and actions. The Laissez faire leader is one who sits back and let’s happens what happens. While this may seem a road to disaster, laissez faire is often the best approach when group members are highly motivated, capable and self motivated. When all are doing what they are supposed to be doing, the best policy is to leave them alone to do their work.
There are several factors that influence the quality of group work.
a. Informational resources: The better informed members are about the problem they are required to solve the better they are to reach a high quality decision.
b. Quality of Group Efforts: Group members should be careful in checking and rechecking information in other to help them make good decisions. Sloppily done work usually leads to poor decisions and negative consequences.
c. Quality of Thinking: Members need to arrive at appropriate conclusion through carefully thought out decisions based on the available materials and information.
d. Decision Logic: To reach the best decision, members should carefully consider the positive and negative qualities of all available choices and then selecting alternatives that offers the most positive and least negative attributes.
Problem solving procedures:
1. Ineffective problem Solving: This method uses decision making processes that fail to consider information or that thwarts the group process.
a. Autocratic decision making: Here the group leader decides which solution is best and then announces this decision to the group. Members have no option than to go along with the group leaders decision.
b. Minority decision making: Similar to the autocratic decisions, however here, the decision is made by a small number of group members.
c. rushing to judgement: In this situation, the group takes decision without proper investigation and discussions. Group may make this decision because of limited time and fatigue.
d. Mob rule. This is the worst method of group decision making. it is a rush to judgement couple with strong emotions. Usually these decisions create more problems than they solve.
Effective or rational model of problem solving
a. Define the problem
b. Investigate the problem
c. Set criteria for a solution
d. formulate possible solutions
e. Select the best alternatives
f. Put the chosen solution into Effect
g. Decide what happens to the group.
Group Leadership
A leader is somebody who guides and directs others. A leader influences the behavior of others. A leader is that person who is strong willed, forceful and drives the group towards its goal.
An effective group leader is one who is capable of using a number of leadership styles and adopts a style best suited to the needs of the group at any given moment.
Traits of leadership:
1. Vision: Ability to see where the group should go.
2. Direction: Ability to help the group to remain focused to their goals.
3. Mediation: Ability to mediate and balance in group and out group relationship.
CREATION OF LEADERS
Leaders are often assigned to post by rank, election or authority. Military groups have officers, committees have chairs appointed by officials, a board elects one of its own as president.
Generally, leaders are created in the following ways.
a. Appointed Leaders: This is a leader appointed by members of the group
b. Emergent leaders: This is a leader that comes to the fore from the body of the group.
Leadership responsibilities.
1. Group Leaders should be prepared: See to the accomplishment of their tasks and those of the group. Involve in Research, Homework, and devote time to think about the group and its work.
2. Group Leaders need to be sensitive to group needs: They need to know when to encourage or discourage discussions, they need to balance the tensions between task activities and relational activities, maintain groups focus, and motivate the group at all times.
LEADERSHIP STYLES
1. Authoritarian: This is a structured, centralized style where leaders exercise tight control over group’s activities. This style is used when time is limited, group members are disoriented, and members trust the leader and when group leaders have the power to enforce decisions. Examples of roles that involve authoritarian leadership styles are, military, quasi military, teachers of small children, tour guides and crew chiefs.
2. Democratic: This style involves the leader making consultation with the group and after hearing its views, makes a decision. A democratic leader is not one who submits every issues to a vote of the group but rather is one who allows the group to express opinions about the problems to be solved. Final responsibility for the decision, however rests on with the leader.
3. Consensus Seeking: In this mode, the group leader is regarded as “first among equals” than possessing more power and rank than others. A consensus seeking leader is one who functions as a discussion leader and mediator, and summarizer. The leader elicits opinions from the group, tries to help discover a common ground for the individual concerns of members, and then makes sure all understand to what they have agreed. A consensus seeking style works best when members are informed, willing to interact, and flexible enough to make concessions in order to reach and agreement.
4. Laissez-faire: The last style of leadership is known as laissez-faire. this style is translated as “ Let the people do as they please”. The leader does little or nothing to influence the group’s decisions and actions. The Laissez faire leader is one who sits back and let’s happens what happens. While this may seem a road to disaster, laissez faire is often the best approach when group members are highly motivated, capable and self motivated. When all are doing what they are supposed to be doing, the best policy is to leave them alone to do their work.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Why Is It a Problem?
Why Is It a Problem?
by Josh Marshall
A lot of people -- mainly but by no means exclusively Republicans -- were on the Sunday shows yesterday denouncing the administration's decision to jail and try KSM and four accused 9/11 plotters in New York City. And most of the criticism comes under three distinct but related arguments: 1) civilian trials give the defendants too many rights and protections and thus create too big a risk they'll get acquitted and set free, 2) holding the prisoners and trial in New York City puts the city's civilian population at unnecessary risk of new terror attacks, and 3) holding public, civilian trials will give the defendants an opportunity to mock the victims, have a platform to issue propaganda or gain public sympathy.
The first two arguments strike me as understandable but basically wrong on the facts. The third I find difficult in some ways even to understand and seems grounded in bad political values or even ideological cowardice.
Let's start with the idea that civilian trials have too many safeguards and create too big a risk these guys will go free. This does not hold up to any scrutiny for two reasons. First, remember all those high-profile terror prosecutions where the defendants went free? Right, me neither. It just does not happen. The fact is that federal judges are extremely deferential to the government in terror prosecutions. And national security law already gives the government the ability to do lots of things the government would never be allowed to do in a conventional civilian trial. (People who really think this is an issue seem to base their understanding of federal criminal procedure on watching too many Dirty Harry movies, which, as it happens, I'm actually a big fan of. But remember, they're movies.) KSM is not going to be able to depose or cross-examine CIA Director Leon Panetta or President Bush or Vice President Cheney or anyone else.
The possibility that a judge would suppress evidence obtained through torture is a real one. But Eric Holder made clear he and his prosecutors believe they have more than enough untainted evidence to obtain convictions. So that should not be an issue.
Finally, even in the extremely unlikely case that any of the five were acquitted of these charges, the government has a hundred other things it can charge them with. Indeed, the government could as easily turn them over to military commissions or indefinite detention post-acquittal as it can do those things with them now. That may not make civil libertarians happy. But it is the nail in the coffin of any suggestions that these guys are going to be walking out of the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan saying they're headed to Disneyland. It's simply not going to happen.
(The best argument against what I've argued here is probably the case of El Sayyid Nosair, the murderer of Jewish extremist leader Meir Kahane, who received a partial acquittal when he was tried in 1991. Here I would say that the case came prior to modern counter-terrorism law in the United States, which I'd date to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. And the Nosair example actually proves my larger point since a subsequent terrorism conspiracy trial got Nosair a life without parole plus fifteen year sentence, which he is now serving at the SuperMax facility in Florence, Colorado.)
We can imagine a different set of facts, where all the most damning evidence was obtained through torture, and acquittal seemed at all a reasonable possibility. In that case there might be a real question as to whether it was worth taking the risk when military commissions which have been used in the past are available. But this 'risk' simply doesn't appear to exist so you do not even need to get to the constitutional or deeper rule-of-law questions.
Next we have the question of danger to the people of New York City. As I said in my first post on this question, just on the facts I don't think al Qaeda terrorists are holding off on attacking New York now because they lack or incentive or feel we haven't pushed things far enough yet to merit another hit. The symbolic value of hitting New York might increase a bit. But it's already so high for these people that the increase seems notional at best. And more to the point, I choose to trust the people already charged with keeping the city safe.
On a more general level, however, since when is it something we advertise or say proudly that we're going to change our behavior because we fear terrorists will attack us if we don't? To be unPC about it, isn't there some residual national machismo that keeps us from cowering even before trivially increased dangers? As much as I think the added dangers are basically nil, I'm surprised that people can stand up as say we should change what we do in response to some minuscule added danger and not be embarrassed.
And finally we come to the fear of what KSM and the others will say. I don't see what factual dispute there is here. And at some level I don't even understand the argument. Logically I understand it; I understand what they're saying. But it's so contrary to my values and assumptions that at some level I don't get it. I cannot imagine anything KSM or his confederates would say that would diminish America or damage us in any way. Are we really so worried that what we represent is so questionable or our identity so brittle? (Some will say, yes: torture. The fact that some of these men were tortured is a huge stain on the country. But it happened and it's known about. To the extent that it is a stain it is the kind of stain that is diminished not made worse by an open public accounting.) Does anyone think that Nuremberg trials or the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961 or the war crimes trials of Slobodan Milosevic and others at the Hague advanced these mens' causes? Or that, in retrospect, it would have been wiser to hold these trials in secret?
At the end of the day, what are we afraid these men are going to say?
What we seem to be forgetting here is that trials are not simply for judging guilt and meting out punishment. We hold trials in public not only because we want a check on the government's behavior but because a key part of the exercise is a public accounting and condemnation of wrongs. Especially in great trials for the worst crimes they are public displays pitting one set of values against another. And I'm troubled by anyone who thinks that this is a confrontation in which we would come out the worse.
by Josh Marshall
A lot of people -- mainly but by no means exclusively Republicans -- were on the Sunday shows yesterday denouncing the administration's decision to jail and try KSM and four accused 9/11 plotters in New York City. And most of the criticism comes under three distinct but related arguments: 1) civilian trials give the defendants too many rights and protections and thus create too big a risk they'll get acquitted and set free, 2) holding the prisoners and trial in New York City puts the city's civilian population at unnecessary risk of new terror attacks, and 3) holding public, civilian trials will give the defendants an opportunity to mock the victims, have a platform to issue propaganda or gain public sympathy.
The first two arguments strike me as understandable but basically wrong on the facts. The third I find difficult in some ways even to understand and seems grounded in bad political values or even ideological cowardice.
Let's start with the idea that civilian trials have too many safeguards and create too big a risk these guys will go free. This does not hold up to any scrutiny for two reasons. First, remember all those high-profile terror prosecutions where the defendants went free? Right, me neither. It just does not happen. The fact is that federal judges are extremely deferential to the government in terror prosecutions. And national security law already gives the government the ability to do lots of things the government would never be allowed to do in a conventional civilian trial. (People who really think this is an issue seem to base their understanding of federal criminal procedure on watching too many Dirty Harry movies, which, as it happens, I'm actually a big fan of. But remember, they're movies.) KSM is not going to be able to depose or cross-examine CIA Director Leon Panetta or President Bush or Vice President Cheney or anyone else.
The possibility that a judge would suppress evidence obtained through torture is a real one. But Eric Holder made clear he and his prosecutors believe they have more than enough untainted evidence to obtain convictions. So that should not be an issue.
Finally, even in the extremely unlikely case that any of the five were acquitted of these charges, the government has a hundred other things it can charge them with. Indeed, the government could as easily turn them over to military commissions or indefinite detention post-acquittal as it can do those things with them now. That may not make civil libertarians happy. But it is the nail in the coffin of any suggestions that these guys are going to be walking out of the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan saying they're headed to Disneyland. It's simply not going to happen.
(The best argument against what I've argued here is probably the case of El Sayyid Nosair, the murderer of Jewish extremist leader Meir Kahane, who received a partial acquittal when he was tried in 1991. Here I would say that the case came prior to modern counter-terrorism law in the United States, which I'd date to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. And the Nosair example actually proves my larger point since a subsequent terrorism conspiracy trial got Nosair a life without parole plus fifteen year sentence, which he is now serving at the SuperMax facility in Florence, Colorado.)
We can imagine a different set of facts, where all the most damning evidence was obtained through torture, and acquittal seemed at all a reasonable possibility. In that case there might be a real question as to whether it was worth taking the risk when military commissions which have been used in the past are available. But this 'risk' simply doesn't appear to exist so you do not even need to get to the constitutional or deeper rule-of-law questions.
Next we have the question of danger to the people of New York City. As I said in my first post on this question, just on the facts I don't think al Qaeda terrorists are holding off on attacking New York now because they lack or incentive or feel we haven't pushed things far enough yet to merit another hit. The symbolic value of hitting New York might increase a bit. But it's already so high for these people that the increase seems notional at best. And more to the point, I choose to trust the people already charged with keeping the city safe.
On a more general level, however, since when is it something we advertise or say proudly that we're going to change our behavior because we fear terrorists will attack us if we don't? To be unPC about it, isn't there some residual national machismo that keeps us from cowering even before trivially increased dangers? As much as I think the added dangers are basically nil, I'm surprised that people can stand up as say we should change what we do in response to some minuscule added danger and not be embarrassed.
And finally we come to the fear of what KSM and the others will say. I don't see what factual dispute there is here. And at some level I don't even understand the argument. Logically I understand it; I understand what they're saying. But it's so contrary to my values and assumptions that at some level I don't get it. I cannot imagine anything KSM or his confederates would say that would diminish America or damage us in any way. Are we really so worried that what we represent is so questionable or our identity so brittle? (Some will say, yes: torture. The fact that some of these men were tortured is a huge stain on the country. But it happened and it's known about. To the extent that it is a stain it is the kind of stain that is diminished not made worse by an open public accounting.) Does anyone think that Nuremberg trials or the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961 or the war crimes trials of Slobodan Milosevic and others at the Hague advanced these mens' causes? Or that, in retrospect, it would have been wiser to hold these trials in secret?
At the end of the day, what are we afraid these men are going to say?
What we seem to be forgetting here is that trials are not simply for judging guilt and meting out punishment. We hold trials in public not only because we want a check on the government's behavior but because a key part of the exercise is a public accounting and condemnation of wrongs. Especially in great trials for the worst crimes they are public displays pitting one set of values against another. And I'm troubled by anyone who thinks that this is a confrontation in which we would come out the worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
