Hostage At The Tables

Hostage At The Tables

It was immediately after the award of trophies after a science contest. I had attended the competition with my best friends, Joy, Martha, and Carol. Joy received the prize of the best presenter, and I was the second, and Teresa was the third. So, we were free to move around and mingle with others as we get to know each other and create friendship. Then, our director, Collins, called me to take his bag to his car. When I was on my way to his car, I saw Martha and Carol walking together, and Joy was left behind. Joy felt lonely and decided to move to the field and sat with Teresa, a new friend we met at the event. After a while, I saw Martha and Carol approaching where Joy and Teresa, we sited. When they got closed to them, Carol told Martha that Joy was talking about them and that they were bad friends.

Joy tried to excuse that she has not spoken anything about them, but they seemed not to listen to her at all. Also, Teresa decided to clarify that they were talking about the event and what they could have done to perform better. I did not believe how Carol and Martha had turned abruptly against Joy. I decided to go where they were, but in a couple of minutes, I saw Carol and Martha fighting against Joy. Teresa tried to separate them as I was just about to reach them. I feared, and I decided to speak to Carol and Martha, but no one responded to me, and they showed bitterness on their face. Suddenly, they all shouted, “you were favored in the competition,” and they walked away; that is when I realized that they were bitter about Joys winning the trophy of the best presenter.

How the elements of “Hostage At The Table” could have been or can be utilized to resolve the issues involved.

The concept of “mind’s eye” in the book “Hostage at the Table” was used to show the ability of human beings to visualize images of actions in their minds. In the case of the above conflict, this concept could have helped me to overcome the natural fear of conflict that I had developed and seen the situation from a different perspective. Also, I could have gained enough energy and courage from the fearful situation and redirect it into dialogue because I had already seen them as my best friend, and they could do nothing to me. I experienced the “bonding circle” because we’re all friends who were firmly attached. I felt some motivation to act, but I couldn’t be able to support any of the two sides. It affected the conflict because I was unable to give an immediate response to the situation.

To preserve the relationship, we always meet together and share stories when we have free time. From the scenario, I was confused, and I did no which side I will support. To make it simple and understanding for both sides, I can request for a dialogue between the two parties and listen to individuals’ suggestion about what is in their mind and what made them fight each other because there might be another hidden agenda that I might have known before. So, the dialogue will give and open reason from both sides, and I believe it will be effective at the end. The negotiation will be very open despite I only knew little idea about the award, but in the process of conversation, maybe a hidden agenda might arise.

Yes, there is a sense of mutual purpose in the negotiation because, during negotiation, I will be able to counterpart the hidden interest or agenda of the two parties. Of course, I will be the mediator, and my role will be to ask questions and listening carefully. This will drive it to the primary source of the conflict between the two sides to reach the appropriate solution. The concept of “safe” as used in the hostage at the table means a neutral ground that is not biased. For the case of this particular situation, I will create a safe environment for negotiation by being neutral while showing some contractual trust or trust of character by not relying on one side to build confidence and effective negotiation. Also, I will create trust in disclosures of information, which will make both parties comfortable and share their information openly.

The concept of “mastering their own stories” as outline in the hostage at the table means that in the process of resolving conflict, the two parties must have a clear flow of information during negotiation to avoid the development of emotions from false or forged information. However, in the process of negotiation, I must understand my position as I prepare to listen to their points, this is because it will help in gathering all the background information and any other hidden agenda to discuss the conflict. Through this, I will also be able to achieve clarity about what is desired from the confrontation as well as what the two parties have prepared to give up or compromise. To understand the other party’s feelings is in the process of listening to their points, especially by recognizing their emotional response in the view of the situation.

What I have learned is that whenever there is conflict, there are appropriate steps that should be taken into consideration that can help one to decide whether he should address the conflict situation or not. Therefore, the decision will involve how to balance the reward against the price of resolving the conflict, which should be unique to some circumstances. I have also realized that there is the aspect to be considered during conflict resolution between two individuals, one if the conflict is troublesome to the extent that it affects one’s behavior or interferes with his/her conscience. One should be frank and open to address it. Also, it is essential not to confuse the observed strain of the discussion with the purpose of whether it will be helpful and suitable to proceed. Observed differences in power usually affect the decision to address a conflict resolution.

References

Overton, A. R., & Lowry, A. C. (2013). Conflict management: difficult conversations with difficult people. Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 26(4), 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1356728

Dahal, B., Ilyas, M., Krajcovicova, E., Marcuello-Lopez, M., Saleh, A., & Saraf, S. S. Hostage at the Table George Kohlrieser.