I say what is on his mind without

I feel that the tone in Ken’s voice and his body language some across defensive and aggressive in the beginning of the conversation. If he wanted to discuss this with Jan, he could have used a softer approach. But he just seemed to get more argumentative and placing all the blame on her.

If Ken slowed down and listened to what Jan was trying to say when she talked about her discussion with Shannon it was not to hurt Ken. Jan had the conversation about Ken cheating in the past before Ken and Shannon started dating. Ken does not listen to Jan if he did he would here in her voice that she is sincere in what she is saying. Ken does not acknowledge anything she is saying by owning the fact that he did cheat in the past. Ken just wants to blame someone else, so he blames Jen for betraying him. (Woods, 2016)

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

In the video Jan attempt to reassure Ken that her action in telling Shannon was not directed at him or to break their relationship. In this part of the conversation Jan is using the loyalty response. Although she was in what she though just having a girl talk conversation with a friend. She did in fact betray her loyalty to Ken by telling someone else.

For Ken in this situation he does not feel that Jan saying, “Sorry is enough”. Jan need to stop talking and give Ken a chance to say what is on his mind without interrupting. This will help Ken to feel validated be trying to understand his point of view and why he is feeling the way he does. In this situation Jan could apply the “Voice Response” (Wood 2016, pg 261) which address conflict directly and attempts to resolve it. You can tell by the tone Jan has that she truly did not mean to hurt Ken. But Ken is so distraught that he is not hearing her.

Jan could also apply the “Loyalty response” (Woods 2016, pg 261) this involves staying committed to a relationship despite differences. Here Ken feels betrayed because he Jan promised him she would not repeat what they have talked about. For Jan to say “It just slipped” I feel upset Ken even more.

In unit 8 Woods discusses non-verbal, verbal cues, and diversity. In this situation the diversity is that you have a male and a female that appear to be friends. The non-verbal cues are the hand gestures used. When Ken first walks in he puts his hand on Jan’s knee and says, “Hey Jan we need to talk”. Later through the conversation his had movement gets more reactive when he starts to get upset. Jan’s non-verbal cues seem to stay consistent. Although she raiser her voice for a moment she is making eye contact and seems very sincere in her apology. Understanding the diversity, Ken might have taken the time to recognize the sincerity Jan showed early in the conversation when she apologized for her actions.  Jan showed she cares with the relationship and really identified and understand her part in what she did that hurt Ken’s feelings.  Ken expressed selfishness throughout the conversation and never really thought about how he is responsible for his part that could jeopardize this relationship.  Ken’s on focus was on him and his feelings and he ignored what Jan was trying to communicate to him.

With Ken, he can work on himself by dealing with emotions without being overcome by them. His reaction and choice of words to Jan were filled with anger and by him reacting off emotion it affected his ability to communicate effectively.  Had he thought about what he was going to say and dealt with his anger he would have had possibly had his emotions under control. Ken needed to deal with his emotions before he spoke to Jan about the situation. He and Jan would have had a very productive conversation.  Jan instead of reacting should have stopped and listened to Ken. They should have listened to how others feel without having to spell it out.  In listening to Ken’s first response, Jan should have identified the frustration and hurt, and used voice response to address the problem.  Jan instead tried to validate the situation by telling him it was told to Shannon before they were dating. Jan still broke her promise to Ken.

Based on the reading this is a win-lose.  Neither Ken nor Jan are avoiding the conflict, and neither is looking for a common resolution to benefit or understand both.  In this situation, Ken wins at the expense of ruining the relationship by placing all blame on Jan, and Jan loses because her best friend does not trust her anymore to confide in her. Zero-sum games would be a disagreement in which there is no possibility for everyone to benefit. (Wood 2016, pg. 258) As stated in text, this orientation places value on competition, self-assertion & individuality. (Wood 2016 pg. 258) Each person should have come up with a solution suitable for both parties.  In this case, Jan and Ken could have agreed on talking with Shannon together to explain the whole situation.  This would lead to the possibility for Ken to clear the air with Shannon on the cheating situation. Because as we all know there are always two sides. With the hopes that Ken and Shannon could work things out. That would be the only way possible for this to come out to a win-win situation.

There were many opportunities for Ken and Jan to use conflict management strategies to resolve this situation effectively. In the beginning of the video you can see that, Ken and Jen both failed to communicate supportively when Ken stated, “Why did you tell Shannon about what happened between me and Katie”. Ken’s approach could have been more of a solution based conversation. Such as “I know you and Shannon are friends and I should have never asked you to keep a secret like this. Because she is your friend also, so I understand.”

In this situation both people involved failed to be empathetic to the other feelings and understand where the other was coming from. Ken automatically assumed that Jan and Shannon just had this conversation. Not realizing this conversation happened before they were dating. In Ken’s thought process he was convinced that Jan told Shannon on purpose. Had Ken let Jan explain the conversation that took place this would have been an effective conflict resolution. Instead Ken cuts her off making the conflict continue.

It states in the reading that Ken and Jan have been friends most of their lives. This would lead me to think that this relationship is important to them. Although Jan and Ken did not agree with each other, they still listened and communicated with non-verbal cues such Ken touching Jan’s leg when he walked in. They both continue to keep eye contact. They both move their hands a lot, but Ken talks more with his the more he get upset.  They both seem to come up with excuses for doing what they did. Jen told Shannon something that was told to her in confidence. Ken went to Jan’s dad and told him something she confided in him about. Neither of them are right. Now they do not know if they can trust each other. They both violated each other’s trust and that is something hard to recover from in any relationship.