Whenever people meet in various groups, there are dynamics that can pose a great risk to the proceedings of the meeting if not well addressed. A professional is expected to understand that people react differently to information presented to them depending on how it is communicated (Curry et al., 2012). Due to this, there is a need to understand the people he is dealing with so as to reduce conflicts and consequently enhance unity. It is common knowledge that people prefer to avoid conflicts and situations that are potentially stressful other than facing them head on. They find it easier to avoid communication on subjects that appear controversial and let the discussions fester to maintain peace.
There are several ways in which to maintain healthy discussions among peers and other professionals. One is having planned conversations in which the content to be talked about is prior thought of and the place, time and other circumstances are planned for due to various reasons. Through this, the people involved can avoid direct attacks that would affect their counterparts while at the same time ensuring that their points are understood (Hackman & Katz, 2010). Taking time to plan what to say and how to say it may ease the reactions that one is likely to encounter from the listener. On the other hand, unplanned conversations occur without prior plans and they are often due to a certain surge of emotion which can be triggered by a certain circumstance.
In both cases, the repercussions associated with the conversations have either positive or negative effects which should be handled by the parties involved to avoid further conflicts. Dealing with conflict and difficult situations when collaborating with parents, families, and professionals in the education sector demand that the individual tries to reduce dire consequences that might aggravate the situation. A professional should handle difficult situations with tact, discretion, empathy, and clarity (Hoffman et al., 2014). In as much as people would try to avoid conflicting ideas, it is advisable that they air their views as they might be the right thing to do irrespective of the results. For instance, a manager may choose not to disclose a bad character of a student to the parents as he thinks that their health would be jeopardized.
However, this probably would be helpful to the student if they take up the action and take him to a rehabilitation center. It is due to this that managers are expected to communicate difficult information on several levels, to staff who are under-performing or if redundancies are necessary (Hoffman et al., 2014). Further, they are expected to report good or bad news to board members or directors so that the progress of an institution is understood and necessary action taken. It should be noted that different people react to change differently thus the approach that is used to address an issue is paramount.
As has already been mentioned, there are people who respond to a change in a positive way while others feel threatened and see a difficulty at first. All these should be put into consideration in order for one to function in a certain group setting (Curry et al., 2012). This helps in reducing anxiety and stress that would otherwise be encountered if they do not embrace the change and the benefits that would be associated with the change.
Curry, L. A., O’Cathain, A., Clark, V. L. P., Aroni, R., Fetters, M., & Berg, D. (2012). The role of group dynamics in mixed methods health sciences research teams. Journal of mixed methods research, 6(1), 5-20.
Hackman, J. R., & Katz, N. (2010). Group behavior and performance. Handbook of social psychology.
Hoffman, D. M., Blasi, B., Ćulum, B., Dragšić, Ž., Ewen, A., Horta, H., … & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2014). The methodological illumination of a blind spot: information and communication technology and international research team dynamics in a higher education research program. Higher Education, 67(4), 473-495.