Conflict is everywhere. Conflict is inevitable. To approach conflict that might arise from any given situation, I tend to be individualistic about the process. By that, I mean that I am pro-self and only concerned about my own outcomes, unless it is conflict with someone with whom I love or am related to. Even though this may seem selfish, it is who I am. In other situations, however, I am more altruistic in a sense that I want to help others who are in need. For example, if I got into an argument with someone who really relied on me and needed my help, I would still help them out regardless of my emotions or feelings towards them because I want to help others succeed.

To negotiate and handle conflict, I come by a hard bargain. I would take extreme positions and make tiny adjustments here and there to compromise with another. This will ensure that I would still benefit from whatever the conflict might entail, even if I have to make slight changes to my stance. The book describes that these type of people are ‘take it or leave it’ or ‘this is my final offer’ type people, and I can resonate directly to that. This is basically a technique that directly relates to entrapment, kind of like the man on the Golden Balls episode, who came right out and stated his stance and thoughts without hesitation, even though he received backlash from others. Even though I do drive a hard bargain, it is still a compromising position on conflict instead of a fighter. I do tend to get heated sometimes and can shift my stance from compromising to fighting, but only in extreme circumstances in which I am passionate about. It’s my way or the highway.

I know this may seem selfish, but I have certain reasoning on why I am this way. Throughout my experiences in group settings, I usually sit through and listen to everyone’s stances on an issue before rendering a final thought myself. Most may not know it, but I do take others’ thoughts into consideration instead of just thinking of ways to counter-argue. In my thought process, once I think all these things through, I render a stance that has qualities of everyone’s positions even if the stance is different from others, unless they are just outright silly and irrelevant. It may seem I am playing devil’s advocate by doing this, but I am doing it for the good of the group. Offering a realist and pessimist view on things will ensure that we keep things real and not aim for ideal standards that are not plausible. For example, the Disney trip that our cohort tried to plan was something that was ideal, but not in reach with our cohort’s current state. At the meetings, I would keep things real and mention things that some didn’t want to hear, like the plausibility of us actually learning anything at Disney, or the fact that we would spend most of our time driving and not learning leadership skills. With these things in mind, it offered our cohort issues that we easily skimmed over, due to the fact that we aimed so high for something that was so expensive. I promise, when I am being pessimistic or realistic, I am not doing it to harm anyone’s feelings. I am offering my realist stance to provide ideas that are within reach.

This way of approaching conflict might have received some backlash in my previous experience in group settings, and it might have even broken some friendships. However, it has been useful to me in the majority of these settings. If I were to change the way I might deliver my realist view; one caveat to change would be my delivery. I seem to come off as bold and harsh, and that would be one thing I would like to fix, as it would help me not come off as someone who doesn’t care about others’ feelings.