Chairpersonal Communication Case Study

I did explain my purpose about being on the meeting with the facilitator before the meeting started, but the facilitator still called me out. I was glad that he called me out because I got the chance to disclose to everyone my reasons to attend the meetings. However, I felt uncomfortable because I am an introvert. I felt shy and anxious. I then realized that AA meeting can be challenging to introvert and shy people, especially if they are forced to be there. As mentioned early on the paper, some participants are forced to attend the AA meetings because they are involved in the legal system. For shy people, an AA meeting cannot help them recover because it consists of sharing with others. Shy people might feel pushed to their discomfort zone for them to share, and get any benefit from an AA

A meeting with all involved parties to discuss the issue is also another good way to resolve conflict. Everyone will have a chance to speak; this is a good opportunity to hear all sides of the story and gain a full understanding of the conflict.

I did not wish to interrupt the natural flow of the meeting with my presence. However, that is exactly what occurred highlighting to me a duality in why AA can be both helpful and harmful depending ton the individual. One member spoke during the open testimony about his desire to only attend meetings with people that have 20 plus years of sobriety because he finds a newcomer to be distrustful to his experience in the group. During his five-minute monologue, it became clear to myself and other group members that he did not appreciate me observing his meeting. As other members spoke after him, he became increasingly agitated in his movements. When the group paused to collect the donations, he left the meeting and did not return. That experience highlighted the negative aspects of AA because the open honesty could be damaging or discouraging to newcomers. I tried to imagine myself a newcomer to AA, seeking treatment for something that I may not fully understand myself. After hearing his dismissal of newcomers and everyone under 20 years sobriety that feeling of “otherness” in a newcomer could push them to not return. Therefore eliminating the AA support for

Every piece of written work you submit for assessment must have this cover sheet attached. Please type in your details then copy and paste to the front of your assignment and save the file ready to upload.

This meeting was broken up into two different sections. First part was story telling. A guy told personal stories of his struggles with alcohol use and abuse from his past in addition to his struggles to remain sober. This part took about 30 minutes. The second part was open dialogue which took about an hour. Nobody was instructing us to do this or that in this section. It was a dialogue which communicating, saying, sitting there, and listening to somebody telling their personal stories. It allowed everyone to talk about their struggles, as well as encourage one another. Before each person started telling his or her stories, that person had to announce his/her name and that his/her were an alcoholic or addict. After the person finished

The AA recovery meeting I attended was at Club Soda. The meeting was open to any who wanted to join, male or female, and provided general discussion as well as discussions and readings about the big book and 12-steps. The members of the group began the meeting by turning in their log sheets for the group chairperson. The chairperson selected another member to help facilitate the meeting and they both introduced themselves as alcoholics and the chairperson discussed the rules of the group. One of the rules stated was that those who had consumed alcohol in the last 24 hours were asked to only listen during the meeting.

When I arrived they had coffee and refreshments open to anyone which i found thoughtful and a good way to get people talking. I saw mainly people with families there who seemed to be going for support. I was still a little apprehensive going by myself as a student and at the time did not feel open to sharing. A man came to the front and stated he is the speaker for this meeting and welcomed us to an open meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous. The meeting began with a moment of silence for those who are sick and a prayer. After the prayer the speaker spoke

AA has no specific leader, it is ran by a peer who is also an alcoholic just like everyone else in the room. The “leader” at the beginning read the steps to opening the meeting and opening the floor for discussion. Other than that, everyone in the room was very involved, for example, peers read certain things such as the 12 steps, how AA works and they all prayed together. Before the floor opened for discussion they read a story on step 4 of the 12 steps and everyone basically based their stories off their 4-step experience. I thought it would be expected that all the attendees would give their full attention to those talking, but I experienced differently. Although, no one was on their phones, there was side talks and one attendee was coloring during the meeting. Attendees job is to not judge others since they have all typically been in the same situation even if they got to AA differently. I did not hear anything about relapses, but at the end of the meeting they did this chip thing where they called out certain days sober and for those who got a chip for a day or wanting to quit drinking everyone clapped and they hugged one another. I believe, this is a sign of support and they want to be there for one another and help those “newcomers” reach sobriety like they did. To close the meeting they all stood up, held hands a did a prayer together, because God is above them all and help them through

Like many others, my perception of AA meetings were unfortunately shaped by television shows. Initially, I was excited to learn about overcoming alcohol addiction and was amazed by the variety of meetings that catered to people’s interests. However, after I had selected my meeting, I became somewhat nervous. I felt that my presence would be an invasion of someone else’s safe space, which in turn would impact their treatment negatively. My fears were exacerbated when I read on online AA forums that participants specifically avoided open meetings because of unwanted visitors, such as medical students and researchers. However, as soon as I walked into the meeting, I was welcomed by a member. After introducing myself and stating my affiliation with FSUCOM, I asked him if my presence would be troublesome for the members. He shook his head and invited me to take food from the table as they were celebrating their sobriety anniversary. I then sat down next to a woman who assured me that the group regularly receives visitors

The meeting began with a prayer and a reading of the twelve steps, which I did, and preceded into a 25-minute meditation session. Following the meditation session, the floor was opened up for persons to reflect on their meditation. It was quiet for sometime, but eventually persons began to talk. Each person that spoke introduced himself or herself as, “Hi I am XXXX and I am an alcoholic” in which the rest of us responded with a hello. The discussion each person brought to the circle often revolved around what they had been experiencing in the last week, and ended with a positive-spin that reflected back on their journey with sobriety. One gentleman talked about his spring break on Orca Island with his kids, another discussed a speaker he was arranging to have visit Spokane, and another woman talked about an “essay reading party” she went to in which wine was being drank by the majority of participants. The meeting ended with the serenity prayer, something the girls at Daybreak say before lunch, and simple discussion between some of the participants. During this time I talked with the woman who had told me where to find the AA meeting. She talked with me about the need to find the proper AA meeting for myself, encouraging me to explore multiple

The initial conflict was started due to an incompatibility of goals by the two parties. Michael wanted to fulfill his work obligation and prioritized that over study hours while the executive board was concerned for obtaining those study hours. Tensions got heated when they confronted him head on after returning home from work, which lead to finger pointing and bickering. The initial conflict interaction ended relatively shortly, but the conflict seemed to push forward over the span of a couple weeks. Evaluating the goals on both sides is crucial to apprehending the communicative process (Berger, 2005). Due to the goals being misconceived, it lead to a standstill. Another important proximal context aspect that directed this conflict was the rules that were at play. Since this conflict was an organizational conflict instead of a social conflict, it created little room for Michael to justify his actions through emotions or other strategies. The organizational goals were not aligned with Michaels prior to the conflict itself, which our textbook would explain that Michael was challenging the rules of the organization through the use of conflict in desire to change the rules and or create new ones (Cupach, Canary & Spitzberg, 2010). It goes without saying, that this conflict did not lead to a successful resolution; but understanding the proximal outcomes and how they shaped the individuals experience is worth noting for future

I’m pleased to inform you that our company would like to offer a wellness program to you and your spouse as a birthday gift. Our wellness program is all about investing in your health and helping you live a healthier lifestyle and make better choices. We believe that healthier the employee and his or her family happier he or she is and a happier employee can serve our customers better and help our company prosper.

The incident in question has placed me in a unique opportunity; as the facilitator of this situation would be best to approach this in a manner that would best benefit the organization, including my department. Although I am already conflicting within with personal and professional points of views, addressing the situation will become a challenge. Despite who initiated this situation or who escalated the situation, resolution must be determined in the best interest of communication within our environment.

In trying to resolve the conflict between Reece and Patel, Edwards used an avoidance strategy. Instead of speaking directly about the root causes, or sources, of the conflict, Edwards focused on the behaviors and treated Reece and Patel like children. Edwards scolded them, and sent them off without bothering to find out what was bothering the two. Of course, this type of conflict resolution is ineffective because it fails to address the underlying issues. As Anderson (n.d.) points out, addressing the problem is key to conflict resolution. "When a conflict does happen, a manager needs to focus the conflicting parties on the issue and have them leave out any personal problems they may be having," (Anderson, n.d.).

Allison Scher and Penelope Ryan worked well together when they showed up at the office every day. The problem aroused after implementation of flexi time & off site working by the company. Both of them started working from home & meet each other only during client meetings.