Resolving Interpersonal Conflict

I remember watching a movie, The Shawshank Redemption, which is about a man wrongly accused of murdering his wife, and his life in prison.
In the movie, the main character, Andy Dufresne helped the Warden launder money through the prison, and when there was proof that Andy Dufresne did not kill his wife, Andy went to talk to the Warden, asking him to appeal to the court to reopen the case, so that he could be released. The Warden as we would expect does not permit it, and gets mad at Andy. This sparks an argument between both of them and ends with the Warden putting Andy in solitary confinement. In this conflict, the main problem is that Andy wants to be released from prison, but the Warden needs Andy in prison to continue his money laundering business.
How Andy probably felt at that moment was hopeful at first, that he might be released, then angry at how unfair the Warden was to him. As for the Warden, he was probably feeling afraid, thinking about what could happen should Andy leave prison, would his money laundering business be exposed, and how could he carry on his business without Andy in prison.
How this problem was initially solved, was the Warden having Andy locked in solitary confinement, which according to the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument, is basically "Avoiding", and "Competing".  "Competing" by making Andy stay in prison, as the Warden holds the power, and  "Avoiding" by locking Andy in solitary confinement, so as to avoid talking about the issue.
How Andy handles this conflict, is by appearing to "Accommodate" the Warden at first, then "Competing" with the warden by contacting reporters, and revealing the money laundering ledger to the public.
Overall, do you think that Andy and the Warden could have come to a compromise, and have a better ending?

Comments

  1. tr15 March 2019 at 21:14

    Hey John,
    Very nice post about "The Shawshank Redemption" which in my opinion is a masterpiece in 1994. Being Andy who is the main character, it is normal to compete with the Warden as he himself wants to be free. However, I think that for both them to compromise, the Warden will need to learn to let it go and also communicate with Andy who might just cooperate with the Warden for life. Although it is wrong to judge this as money laundering is illegal but viewing this as a conflict handling situation, I will suggest both of them to be a good listener and learn to compromise and to accommodate to one another. Perhaps, after being released out of the prison, Andy will continue to be friends with the Warden and they could work together for life. As I mention this is in the context of the conflict handling, personally I would like both of them to stay in prison as they are criminals - if this is even real. Anyways, great post about a scenario in the movie, in the end, I think that if both Andy and Warden have come to a compromise, they will definitely have a better ending for themselves.

    Signing out~
    Yee Tong
    https://yeetongcom150.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown15 March 2019 at 21:50

    Hi John,
    In such situations there seem to be really no way out when the warden holds the trump card! I think if I were to be Andy, I believe the reason why Andy is laundering money for the warden is to build up his relationship with the warden so that he could get help because he knows that he did not kill his wife. However the warden was being too greedy, and he has neglected the needs of Andy so that he can continue money laundering. I find that this is very similar in project groups, where one team member would not actively play his/her part in the project, so that they can keep up with their academic results, which in turn became a burden to the rest of the group because they have to complete the particular irresponsible individual's part. In both situations I would try and find ways to resolve such conflicts by understanding why are they behaving in such manner, and then come up with solutions that would allow them to change for the better. If all fails, depending on the timeline, I would escalate the case to the professor in charge, which are reporters for Andy's case. I guess now Andy have a shorter jail term now thanks to money laundering ;)

    Regards,
    Rachel Ang
    rachelcom150.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. Vishnu16 March 2019 at 08:18

    Hi John,
    The current situation is a lose-lose situation for both sides. By locking Andy Dufresne in solitary confinement, the warden will not get any gains from it. In fact, it’s a loss for him as the warden will not have Andy to launder money for him. On the other hand, it is also a loss for Andy’s side as he does not get out of prison. As a result, a compromise cannot be attained in such situation. It’s either the warden helps Andy Dufresne to get out of prison and lose his money laundering business or he locks Andy Dufresne in solitary confinement and still lose his money laundering business. The only gain for the warden would be that he can make sure Andy does not report his business.
    However, with the right type of communication, a win-win situation can be achieved. Andy could have created and communicated the benefits of letting him out of prison. For an instance, Andy could have said that if the warden helps him to get out of prison, he will not tell on him and his illegal business. Also, Andy could have offered that he can train another convict in the jail to continue the warden’s money laundering business. In this way, both parties would get a gain out of it.
    This way of communication is vital when it comes to handling an authoritative figure. You should state the benefits of the resolution instead of posing the threats and dangers of the conflict. This is to avoid any risky situation for both parties in the conflict resolution process.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 14 Critical Reflection

In view of the two objectives I set for myself at the start of the course, I have only fulfilled the second objective, speaking confidently in front of a camera. I do not know if presenting in front of a class counts of speaking in front of a large crowd, hence, I am unable to confirm if I have achieved my first objective. Next, the Skills on Wheels part, on group-based communications, based on my decisions and answers on Skills on Wheels, I realized that I am not very good with interacting with others. According to Skills on Wheels, I should show some care and concern to people when I meet them. Honestly, I feel that that seems hypocritical, as I feel that asking about another person's life while not really caring about it, firstly, wastes both parties time, secondly, could seem ingenuine should there not be a follow-up conversation. I agree with showing concern about a person's life, but please show genuine concern. Honestly, I detest hypocrisy.  Other than communic...
Read more

Evaluating Listening Skills & Nonverbal Behavior

For this blog post, I have observed my group of friends from my secondary school. I have noticed some of the usual interactions a group usually has, for example, the alpha of the group, the quiet character of the group, the clown of the group, and so on. In the group, active listening occurs according to the ranking of the person in the group. The higher the rank, the more people listen. The same system applies for non-verbal communication. For example, if the quiet guy speaks the group usually does not pay attention, as compared to when the alpha speaks. The rank system could also be taken as a form of non-verbal communication. The rank shows a person's social standing, wealth, and authority in certain interactions. The amount of wealth one's parents has, and the amount of wealth the individual currently has, can alter the rankings of the system, which in turn alters how the group perceives  that individual, which leads to more active listening when the individual speaks. An...
Read more