In this final reflection report, I will reflect and write down everything that I have learned from the literature of the articles and what I have I learned during the weekly seminars. I will also mention what I and my fellow students have been doing during these weekly working groups.
This final reflection report consists of five sections, which represent the five working groups. Every section starts with a short summary of the weekly preparatory assignments that I had to write for the last five weeks. I will aim my attention on my suggested learning action points in this summary. These sections will then proceed on what I have actually learned during the working groups.
At last, I will reflect on all three different roles that have been played by me and my fellow students during these roleplays. Conversation leader, conversation partner and observer are the three different roles that are being played by me and my fellow students. We have been practicing these roleplays in possible scenarios in which we actively switched these three particular roles. This roleplaying has been done by the following students: Ricky Gommans, Cain van den Heuvel, Zakaria El Amriti and me Zakariya Ezriouel.
The last part of my reflection report basically gives an answer to the following question: “How can I continue my development in this regard?”
Chapter 1 – basic conversation skills (week 38)
The first week's literature is about basic conversation or communication skills. Evaluation about performances is also highlighted in this week's literature. As a presenter, I have been evaluated several times on performances as I have been giving a lot of presentations throughout my academic school career. The last time that I have been evaluated on my performances as a presenter was a few months ago, as I had to present the core of my research to my classmates for the course Academic Skills.
I have learned a few reflection and attention points of a presentation during evaluation conversation. Presentations and conversations are actually similar to each other as you as a messenger, are trying to convey a message (verbal/non-verbal) to a possible receiver. I have learned a lot from these evaluations. First of all, I learned that you should not make the message too easy or toot hard as it will draw away the attention from the receiver or that the receiver might perceive something different from what you are willing or intending to convey to this perceiver or receiver of this message.
Furthermore, you should not leave conversations one-sided, let the perceiver or receiver of the message put his share in the conversation as well. moreover, a very important aspect of communication skills during conversation is your body language. A lot can be perceived from your body language. A message is not only conceiver verbally since non-verbal communication contains a huge part in a message as well. A wrong body language or too much of it can draw away the attention of the perceiver of the message.
A learning action point for the upcoming working is that learning is an important process of creating knowledge as its recreated in the personal knowledge of the learner, learning also results from energetic transactions between the messenger and his surrounding environment. We could say that it is transmitting new experiences from older experiences. An important and very clear learning action point is that all learning is actually relearning as we keep doing it from our ideas and beliefs.
Communication is very important for organizations. The sender of a message, the actual message and the receiver of the message can be distinguished from communication. A distinction can be made between regulating skills and assertive skills as we focus on the sender of a message. Regulating skills are the skills with one influences the structure and direction of conversations. These are essential to control the meaningful message of a conversation. Assertive skills are skills which purpose is to reveal as convenient as possible what one other want and thinks.
The three phases of regulating skills are as follow: starting the conversation and setting goals; the goal evaluation and ending the conversation. The selective listening skills and the non-selective listening skills are part of the listening skills. A huge part of our communication is composed of nonverbal behaviour such as facial expression, body posture, eye contact and encouraging gestures. Asking questions, paraphrasing, reflection of emotions, concreteness and summarizing are all part of the selective listening skills. Initiative and reactive are part of the sender skills. The four factors that are essential to giving information are: structure, simplicity of style, conciseness and attractiveness.
The clarity and order of an amount of information is meant with the structure in this sense. Conciseness simply means a limit in the amount of information given to the receiver. Attractiveness can be distinguished into the content of the message and into the relationship between the speaker and the partner. Lack of courage, negative expectations and lack of skills are the main reasons why some people have difficulties in making requests or setting tasks. In general, three divergent approaches can be classified: the assertive way, the sub-assertive way and the aggressive way.
Sub-assertive basically means that you let others walk over you, that you are shy, dependant on others and that you are not able to say what you want as you are afraid of entering into possible conflicts with others. At last, assertive means that you stand up for yourself and that you are being outspoken, independent and dare to express your opinions. The core here is that the responsibility of yourself is yours and that you can easily decide for yourself what is good or wrong. You will not tolerate yourself to be influenced by other one's opinions about you.
We used these so-called roleplays during the working group with my fellow students in order to practice these basic communication skills. We made use of the three different approaches that are as follow: sub-assertive, aggressive and assertive. The setting of the roleplays was as follow: the conversation leader is the supervisor at a production organization. The conversation partner is one of the employees of this organization. We practiced four roleplay situations. I will first sketch everyone's roles for the roleplay and then discuss about the situation itself with the feedback that was given at that moment.
Role play 1: Zakariya was the conversation leader and had an aggressive managerial style towards Zakaria who in this case was the conversation partner. Cain and Ricky were the observers. Zakaria, the conversation partner keeps showing up late at his work and had to show up at the managers office. The manager had an aggressive tone towards the employee, who was very assertive and accepted everything that the manager said. The observers said that these two students were good in their role, but they were a bit two enthusiastic in their roles.
In role play 2, Cain was the conversation leader who is sub-assertive, Ricky is the conversation partner who was aggressive. Zakariya and Zakaria are the observers. In this case, Ricky, who was the conversation partner, did not keep his appointments and had to show up at the manger's office. Ricky showed an aggressive tone towards Cain, who showed to be sub-assertive and thus very calm and professional. The feedback that the observers had given was as follow: the students were good in their roles, although they did not show their style in a good manner.
In role play 3, Ricky was the conversation partner who is sub-assertive and Zakariya the conversation partner who is assertive. Zakaria and Cain are the observers. So, in this situation Zakariya did not finish his work and had to show up at the manager's office. Ricky, the manager had a sub-assertive tone towards Zakariya who is assertive during the conversation. Both players were good in their role. And in the last roleplay, Zakaria was the conversation leader who is assertive, and Cain was the conversation partner who is sub-assertive. Zakariya and Ricky were the observers. In this case, Cain showed up late at work and had to show up at the managers office. Zakaria had an assertive tone towards Cain who is sub-assertive. Both players were good in their role, however the conversation took some time.
Chapter 2 – performance evaluation interview (week 39)
The literature of this week is very interesting as it is about the performance evaluation interview. I gained a lot more insight and knowledge about the performance evaluation interview. A lot of people would have experienced a performance evaluation interview. I did not only experience a performance evaluation interview as I have experienced an appraisal interview at my work environment as well. Currently, I used to be someone who was occupied with washing the dishes for the first three years.
A lot of employees are working for this restaurant, but most of them are waiters. There is one manager that is also the owner of this restaurant. The manager or his wife are the only ones who are organizing these performance evaluation interviews once a year. They also organize an appraisal interview at the end of the year. Every employee of the company will have the interview. The performances of every employee are being discussed during the performance evaluation interview.
I will talk about my past experience during the performance evaluation interview in my company. First of all, as an employee, I could start talking about my work performances, my development and the atmosphere at my work environment. My good and points were being stated by the manager after I finished talking. She also said and highlighted how I should improve on my bad things. We then made agreements on how to improve myself at the end of the conversation.
Let's proceed with the appraisal interview. The appraisal interview is mostly an interview that puts the focus on how to improve the contract of an employee at the company. In my case, the appraisal interview was a personal success as I got promoted within the company after three years of hard work. At this very moment, I am a member of the kitchen. I have been transferred from a dishwasher to a member of the kitchen.
The appraisal interview did not only show me that the manager of the company trusted as it also show me the potential for every employee to grow within the company. Some learning points for the workgroup were the differences between a performance evaluation interviews and appraisal interviews. This could be done by roleplaying as fellow group members act as a manager or an employee of a particular organization. How to structure an interview could also be an important learning action point for the work group.
The goal of a performance evaluation interview is to bring up the interests of the organization and the employees in an optimal manner. The employee can bring the functioning of a supervisor, manager or a colleague into the discussion. Hence, the conversation or interview is two-sided. The following principles make an evaluation interview more human: more emphasis on the equality of the conversation parties; more emphasis on the tasks than on the person; more emphasis on the future than on the past.
The focal points in a performance evaluation interview are the work behaviour and the work relationship. Ways of solving problems and searching for their causes is central in this interview. There are no explicit consequences whatsoever for wages or promotion in this interview. Both the manager and the employee are speaking and make agreements together. The consequences of a prior appraisal interview are the focal point in an appraisal interview. A judgement will be made upon the employee. There could be direct consequences for promotion and wage adjustments. In this case, the manager is doing the talking most of the time and the managers also takes the decisions.
The common goal of a performance evaluation interview is to reassure that the interests of the employee and the organization are in line with each other. The sequence of the performance evaluation interview starts with the preparation followed by the appointing of the roles and ends with the possible judgements of errors. Numerous of mistakes are made unconsciously. The evaluation interview therefore has to be made very clear and carefully. The performance evaluation model is composed of the following four parts: the start of the interview, composition of the agenda, discussion of the subjects, and the ending of the interview.
We used the roleplays during the seminars with some other students to practice some possible scenario's in performance evaluation interviews. First of all, there all three roles: interviewer, interviewee and the observer. We are practicing some performance evaluation interviews in which we switched roles. The is setting that we used for this roleplay is as follow: Dinner Ltd hired numerous of temporary waiters who will get a fixed appointment at the end of every year. Besides, there will be a performance evaluation interview every six months.
The role of the interviewer is as follow: the interviewer will be either Alex Armstrong or Grace Green. Alex or Grace is the supervisor, headwaiter of Dinner Ltd. The interviewer has to come up with positive feedback points and two criticism points. The role of the interviewee is as follow: the interviewee Stanley or Stephanie Stensen is a temporary waiter at Dinner Ltd. This interviewee has to come up with a point of criticism towards the supervisor or headwaiter.
We practiced four roleplay situations. At first, a sketch of everyone's roles during these roleplays will be given and I will then discuss about the situation itself with the following feedback that has been given at that very moment. So, in roleplay 1, Zakaria was the conversation leader and Ricky the conversation partner. Zakariya and Cain were the observers during the first roleplay. The following feedback has been given. Zakaria, who was the headwaiter was well-prepared for the interview and was very direct to the temporary waiter in this interview. Ricky, who was the temporary waiter, was very nervous and critical towards the headwaiter in the interview.
In role play 2, Ricky was the conversation leader and Zakariya on the other hand the conversation partner. Zakaria and Cain are the observers during the second roleplay. The following feedback has been given. Ricky who was the headwaiter was very well-prepared in this conversation and was very direct as well towards the temporary waiter. Zakariya on the other hand was very critical towards the headwaiter and was very nervous.
In role play 3, Zakariya was the conversation leader and Cain the conversation partner during the interview. The following feedback has been given: Zakariya who was the conversation partner was prepared in a well manner and had good arguments to support his points during the interview towards the temporary waiter. Cain, who was the temporary waiter, was very assertive and just nodded yes for most of the time during the conversation towards the headwaiter.
In the fourth and last roleplay, Zakaria was the conversation partner and Cain the conversation leader. Ricky and Zakariya were the observers. The following criticism has been given. Cain, who was the headwaiter, showed to be very aggressive and bad mannered towards the temporary waiter. Zakaria who was the temporary waiter started a bit on the nervous side but showed to be aggressive as well towards the end of the interview.
Chapter 3 – breaking bad news (week 40)
This week's literature gives insights about the skill or phenomenon of receiving or bringing negative news (bad news) or information in the daily work environment. I would say that this week's literature is very interesting as I have experienced some likely scenario. Receiving negative news is quite common and not something new, although a lot of people struggle to handle negative news. This week's literature is not only interesting as it is also very important since we learn that it is not very easy for managers or supervisors to receive, but most of all bring negative news to others. Well in my case, I can only mention that I received negative news and luckily never had to bring it to others, in my work environment. I used to work for Uzumi, a sushi restaurant, when I was 14 years. I used to wash the dishes at that time.
I needed time to settle in as this was my very first job. I think that it is quite common that people need their time to adapt when they just start their first or new job. Well, this does not apply to every manager or employee, although in my case, I needed time to adapt to my new and first work environment. once settling in, I had no difficulties at work and the supervisor was happy with me as an employee. I used to work on the Fridays, starting at 5 afternoons until 12 o' clock. My supervisor changed later on changed it from Fridays to Saturdays after a year. I did not show up at work on time and could not perform properly anymore, because of tiredness after that. This because I always have football matches at Saturdays.
My supervisor invited me for a conversation. This conversation was most likely about the negative news that I would receive at that time. Well, I remember that my supervisor started mentioning a lot of things that simply clarifies how important time is in the daily life and for the companies. She then mentioned how this does not apply to me and asked me that I had to choose between football or the company. This was a very easy decision for me and I got fired eventually. This is the negative news that I that I received in my work environment. I suppose that it is a very good idea to practice on how to bring and receive negative news. This could easily be done by roleplaying by me and my fellow students.
Bringing bad news towards someone consist of three phases. The first one is that the bad news must be delivered immediately. The second one is how to deal with reactions and the third and last one is looking for possible solutions. In general, there are two different situations of bringing bad news. The first one is situations in which someone at the start of the conversation knows that he or she has to deliver bad news. The second situation is one in which someone realizes during the conversation that he or she is going to bring the bad news.
We practiced the roleplays during the working group with my fellow students in order to practice in some possible scenarios to bring bad news. We practiced these conversations in which we actively switched roles. The setting that we used for this roleplay is as follow: the line manager of Spar informs one of his employees that he will be demoted to a lower job position within the company. We have been practicing four possible roleplay situations. First of all, a sketch of everyone's roles during these roleplays will be highlighted and I will then mention about the scenario itself with the following feedback that has been given by the observers at that very moment.
Let's start with role play 1, in which Ricky was the conversation leader and Cain the conversation partner. Zakariya and Zakaria were the observers at the first roleplay. Ricky was the manager and showed to be very direct and dominant towards Cain, who was the employee who on his side was very shocked and assertive during the conversation. The following feedback has been given to Ricky and Cain. Both players were good in their role, although they needed some time to come up with arguments when they were speaking to each other during the conversation.
However, Cain who was the manager started with a short introductory sentence at the beginning of the interview. Cain also waited and did not give the bad news immediately. He did give Ricky the chance and time to speak and respond in the conversation. Cain did not explain the bad news a second as he only gave the bad news once. Although Cain was very good in his role, he performed bad in giving arguments and explanations to support the bad news. Cain introduced the last phase of the conversation very clear and in a simple manner. He maintained a good relationship with Ricky, the employee. Alternatives and information about possible solutions were being discussed by both parties. In overall, it was a good conversation by both parties.
Zakariya was the conversation leader and the manager in role play 2 and showed to be very indirect towards the conversation partner. The conversation partner was Ricky, the employee and showed to be very confused and angry towards the manager during the conversation. Zakaria and Cain were the observers in role play 2. The following feedback has been given towards Zakariya and Ricky by the two observers. The manager did not start the conversation with an introductory sentence as he was very indirect towards the employee. He did bring the bad news immediately towards Ricky, who started being very angry and confused as he did not know how to respond on this news.
The manager and the employee eventually had a very good conversation as the manager gave the employee time and opportunity to respond and speak during the conversation. The manager reflected on the employee's feelings and informed him clearly why and how things have come this end. The manager eventually came with possible solutions for the future and some alternatives. He also introduced the last phase of the conversation and maintained a good relationship with the employee.
Cain was the conversation leader and thus the manger in role play 3, while Zakaria was the employee and the conversation partner. Zakariya and Ricky were the observers in role play 3. Cain who was the manager showed to be very understanding towards the employee as he immediately received the bad news at the start of the conversation. The conversation was not very professional, because the employee was too sad to speak in the conversation, while Cain gave some solutions and he stopped the conversation and made a second appointment with the employee when he knew that the conversation at that moment had no effect.
In the fourth and last role play, Zakaria was the conversation leader who was the manager and was very direct but not caring towards the employee. Cain was the conversation partner and thus the employee and was very angry during the conversation. Ricky and Zakariya were the observers. The conversation did not last for long as the employee reacted to angry towards the manager who give the bad news at the start of the conversation.
Chapter 4 – Conflict management (week 41)
The importance of Conflict management within organizations is highlighted as this week's topic in this week's literature. The article mentions numerous conflict management styles and behaviours towards solving conflicts as well. the different phases of conflict management within organizations is also covered in this week's literatures. We could also suppose that conflict management is very important for managers of today's environment as conflicts can occur commonly within organizations and managers are held responsible to act in the right way accordingly to solve these conflicts. Reading the literature, I would say that my personality fits the best to the fighting or cooperating managerial styles as I always stand behind my ideals and fight for my interests, no matter what the situation holds.
There are three other managerial styles, these are the adapting, avoiding and negotiating styles. These last three managerial styles are not really in line with my personality. There have been multiple conflicts at my work, Cafe BLVD. At this very moment, I am a member of the kitchen now and once, I have been involved in a conflict at my workplace as well. I used to work on the Saturdays, although I always started later at my work as I have football matches on the Saturdays. my old chef was aware of this. I remember once that the new chef, who sometimes is a nice guy, but can be bit of a psycho when he has a bad mood, was screaming at me that I showed up later at work when I said that everyone is aware of this, he told me to simply go home.
I said that I am not going anywhere, though he continued to moan indirectly towards me for the next two hours. As I went to the toilet, I messaged my manager, who was on a holiday at that time. My manager called my chef after 4 hours and basically explained him about my situation. He got a little bit angry as I did not listen to him and did not attend him beforehand about my particular situation, but he later on apologised. Well, we could conclude that that if I had the avoiding or adapting managerial style, I would never stay at work and would not speak up to the chef. Some learning points for the upcoming working group could be that we practice how to handle certain or possible conflict situations within our work environment. this could easily be done by roleplaying between the students.
We can talk about a conflict in a certain situation where individuals or actors have opposing (contradicting) ideas, views, opinions or beliefs about a possible subject or matter; experience the possible situation as a conflicting one; are not able to control their emotions that take a part in the conflicting situation. The following characteristics can be perceived in conflict scenarios: the point of difference; different interests by the opposing parties; degree of dependence by the parties; the degree of power by the parties; the pressure of time. The specifics of a possible conflict situation depend on the personal characteristics and specifics of the conflict situation.
We practiced some possible scenario's in conflict management with these role plays. We actively switched roles during these roleplay scenarios. The setting that we used for these role plays is as follow: The conversation leader is the CEO of Ahold. The shareholders told him that the company needs some new publicity. However, the conversation partner who is the managing director of the marketing department of Ahold, is scared that the costs for this particular commercial will exceed their budget and wants to stop funding it.
Zakariya was the conversation partner and the CEO of Ahold in this first roleplay. He showed to have a fighting style in the conversation. Ricky was the conversation partner and thus the managing director of the marketing department of Ahold and he showed to have a cooperating style during the conversation towards the CEO. Cain and Zakaria were the observers during the first roleplay. The following feedback has been given towards the players by the observers at that very moment. Zakariya who was the CEO started the conversation with good arguments, but later on was trying to push the arguments as Ricky tried to cooperate during the conversation. Both players were good in their role and made use of good arguments to support their views on this particular subject.
Zakaria was the conversation leader in the second role play and he showed to have a negotiating style during the conversation. Cain was the conversation partner and thus the managing director of the marketing department in the second role play, he showed to be very avoiding during the conversation. Zakariya and Ricky were the observers. The following feedback has been given about role play 2. The conversation started well as Zakaria tried to negotiate with Cain, but the managing director kept on avoiding the main subject with other subjects as he had an avoiding style during the conversation. The conversation eventually did not last long as there were no incentives anymore for the CEO to try convincing Cain as he did not listen in the conversation.
In role play 3, Cain was the conversation leader and thus the CEO of Ahold. Cain showed to have a fighting style in the conversation. Zakaria was the conversation partner and also showed to have a fighting style in the conversation. Zakariya and Ricky were the observers in the third roleplay. The following feedback has been given towards these two players: both players were good and active in their roles. It made the conflict more visible as both parties wanted to get the conversation or goal to their end. It looked like they did not want the best for the company, but just wanted to get it to their right end. They were a bit aggressive towards each other in a verbal manner, although they showed to have very good arguments to support their opinions.
Ricky was the conversation partner and thus the CEO of Ahold in the fourth and last roleplay. Ricky showed to have a negotiating style towards the managing director of the marketing department. Zakariya in the last roleplay was the conversation partner and thus the managing director of the marketing department and showed to be negotiating during the conversation. Cain and Zakaria were the observers in the second roleplay. The following feedback has been given. Both players were good in their role. They both made use of good structured arguments to support their opinions during the conversation. The conversation lasted too long, because both parties kept on going to be negotiating during the conversation.
Chapter 5 – Negotiating (week 42)
Negotiating is being covered in this week's literature. Negotiating is a social skill that can benefit or be very helpful for people in some particular situations. It can directly be derived that people who have trained or naturally possess this particularly skill, allows them that these people can lead many situations to their way. Numerous of different phases of negotiating are being highlighted in this week's literature. I convince that I am very experienced when it comes to negotiating. I always used to negotiate with my parents about what time I had to be back home when I played outside, when I was younger. But most of the times, I negotiate about certain prices these days.
Well, as a Moroccan, I go to Morocco every summer during the holidays. I always go to the local shopping market to get some stuff for me and my friends. I always try to bargain about the price when I know that I can get the particular product for less. It seems that bargaining about the price is not nice towards these entrepreneurs, but I would say that every Moroccan is expected to bargain about the price when buying something. It is even part of our culture.
I remember that I had to buy Argan oil for my friend last summer. The owner of this particular shop immediately asked me what I am looking for as soon as I entered his shop. In Morocco, you are always a friend in the eyes of these entrepreneurs when you as a customer are willing to buy something. The owner who sells the Argan oil mentioned a price twice the amount that I was thinking of. So, I immediately bargained and negotiated about the price. We eventually ended up talking hours about topics such as climate change, football, Europe, Africa, etc. I eventually bought the Argan oil with fifty percent discount, so it was a very good deal in my eyes. It could be very helpful and interesting to practice negotiating in some scenario's during the working group. This could be done by roleplaying with my fellow students.
Negotiation is a skill that can differ among individuals. Negotiations are pushed forward in the given space between possible target points and points of resistance of both negotiators.
The target point could be seen as a goal or ideal that is viewed by a party. The point of resistance is the minimum result that one of the parties takes for granted. The negotiation situations can have the following differences among each other: the amount of parties participating; the matter/subject; the relationship between the parties.
We actively practiced some scenarios with negotiating in the working group. We practiced this with the roleplays. We actively changed from roles during these scenarios. The setting is as follow: the conversation leader is a CEO, who is planning to purchase the company of a competitor. The conversation partner is the owner of the company that the conversation leader wants to buy. The owner does not necessarily want to sell his company. Therefore, he is only going to regret it when the CEO or conversation leader comes up with a high price. Although the CEO does not want to pay a high price for this company.
In role play 1, Zakaria was the conversation leader and thus the CEO who wants to purchase the company of the competitor. Zakariya was the conversation partner and thus the owner of the company that the CEO is willing to buy in this case. Ricky and Cain were the observers in the first roleplay. The following feedback has been giving about the two players. Both players were good in their role. Zakaria, the conversation leader showed to be very motivated, while the conversation leader, Zakariya was easily persuaded in the first role play scenarios. Zakariya who was the owner of the company and the conversation partner, showed to be open while negotiating and very easily to persuade. The conversation leader, Zakaria in this case was hard to read and very motivated. He kept the conversation going as he was very eager to but the company. He was narrow-minded and very stubborn. He showed to be deflecting and very active in the conversation.
Zakariya was the conversation leader and thus the CEO who is willing to buy the competing company during the second roleplay. Zakariya showed to be understanding towards the owner of the company. The setting is unchanged and Zakaria was the conversation partner, hence the owner of the company that Zakariya, the CEO is willing to buy from him. The conversation partner showed to be very aggressive and protective during the negotiations. Cain and Ricky were again the two observers during the second role play. The following feedback has been given towards these two players during their negotiations. Zakariya showed to be very understanding and assertive towards the conversation partner and thus was very professional during the negotiations. He was not too bossy and defensive at the same time. The CEO was very dominant in the negotiations, although he did not really want to dominate. He was hard to read, was open and gave a lot of good arguments to support his views during the negotiations.
Zakaria on the other hand, who was the conversation partner showed to be very protective, aggressive and emotional during these negotiations. He could barely stay professional and hide his emotions in the conversation. He was very stubborn, oppositional even if it was not in his advantage and tough. The conversation partner also showed to be narrow-minded and not open to alternatives during the conversation. On the overall, the players were very good in their role in the second scenario of the roleplays.
Ricky was the conversation partner, and therefore the CEO who is willing to buy the company of a competitor in the third roleplay. Cain in this case was the conversation partner who is the owner of the company. Both players in the third roleplay had a fighting character. Zakariya and Zakaria both were the observers in the third roleplay. The following feedback has been given to these two players. Both the conversation leader and the conversation partner had a fighting style while negotiating and, hence the conversation was very unprofessional.
Both players were very good in their role during the negotiations. But it looked as both players were negotiating at a local market. Ricky, the conversation leader did not take the competitor serious as he was trying to negotiate in order to purchase his business. The conversation partner showed to be very bossy during the conversation and his will to dominate in the negotiations was high. He sometimes spoke on an informal way and was very hard to read. He was very narrow-minder and deflecting during the negotiations.
The conversation partner on the other hand, who was the owner of the company felt obliged to negotiate to him, because he was just nodding and not saying anything. He was not sub-assertive as he did not give the conversation leader his sense, but it certainly not looked that he came up for himself. The conversation partner was not open nor defensive and was basically easy to read. Both players were good in their role.
The roles in the fourth and last roleplay were divided as follow: Cain was the conversation leader, the CEO who wants to buy the company of a competitor. Cain's strategic plan is to buy the company for a low price and was very eager to get it. Ricky on the other was the conversation partner who did not take the matter serious.
Zakariya and Zakaria were the observers in the fourth and last roleplay. The following feedback has been given about the last roleplay. Both players were very good in their role. Cain was eager to purchase the company for a low price and supported his views with a lot of good arguments. The negotiations or conversation however did not take too long as the conversation partner did not take the offers of the conversation leader serious.
I will give a clear and convenient answer to the following question in the last part of the report: “How can I continue my development in this regard?” I will answer this question by making use of the acknowledged knowledge from the recent weeks of the Strategic Human Resource Management course. First of all, communication is very important in our daily (work) life and not only verbal part has to be taken in account with as there are several important parts of communication as well. Accommodation is the best goal when engaging with someone. Do not look only look at your own beliefs and goals. Tell the truth in every scenario and be respectful, always! Adapt to other beliefs when the situation asks for it. Negotiate with the other party to reach a common goal. Work always together to reach a solution
Communication in Organizations, Basic Skills and Conversation Models Henk T. Van der Molen and Yvonne H. Gramsbergen-Hoogland
...(download the rest of the essay above)