Analysis of a Session Dealing with Interpersonal Communication - Case Study Example

 Analysis of a Session Dealing with Interpersonal Communication Communication is the key-stone that holds together relationships (DeVito, 2001); and conflict between individuals sharing an intimate relationship is often a result of a lack of adequate and appropriate communication (DeVito, 2006). When people come for therapy due to problems in their relationship; they are often trying to get help for their lack of effective communication. This affects their ability to trust each other’s and themselves to resolve issues (Goleman, 1995). Thus, the quality of their relationship is affected (Covey 1991). It is a therapist’s responsibility at this point to help these individuals become able to communicate again by means of helping them resolve the presenting problems that plague them, as well as to encourage them to start communicating effectively again. At such times, the counselor plays the role of a mediator as well as a leader in that she / he encourages the client’s to discuss their issues and concerns; mediates to help them resolve these issues; and provides a template for them to use in an attempt to communicate effectively amongst themselves. Presented Scenario For this particular scenario, the presenting problem was brought into therapy by Rebecca who is a housewife with two small children. She has been having fights with her husband Michel because she believes that she needs some help from him when he comes home; but he believes that after a hard day’s work he deserves to rest once he is home. He feels that house work is his wife’s job; and that he expects that she should be able to manage problems in the same way that he manages problems at work. One of the goals of this session was to help both husband and wife understand the stress that the other was experiencing; and to help them empathise with each other (Sprecher, and Toro-Morn, 2002). Another goal was to help them negotiate and come up with a working plan that they could try to use in an attempt to reduce the problems that they have been having. A third and final goal of this session was to help the couple communicate their feelings to each other and be able to speak and listen better to one another (Hybels, and Weaver, 1988). Thus, the role of the therapist in this scenario was to demonstrate the use of skills in interpersonal communication, underline the value of these skills for conflict resolution in close relationships; and act as a good negotiator for the resolution process. An analysis of the present video shows that the therapist was able to fulfill some of these goals but fell short of others. By the end of the session; the couple had been encouraged to understand each other’s needs to some extent; and to empathize with each other’s problems and expectations. They were also encouraged to develop a working plan that they would be able to try out in an attempt to reduce the stress and conflict that they were experiencing on a daily basis. On the together hand, there was very little communication between the couple directly during the session; and there was no attempt to encourage them to talk things through among themselves at this point. The therapist also did not adequately stress the value in using skills for communication that would help the couple cope with further problems in a more effective manner. Strengths On the positive side; the therapist did use strong listening skills, and paraphrased the clients’ words so that they were able to deal with the basic emotions that came up during the conflict. An example would be when Michel explains his opinions she repeats and paraphrases by saying “So what you are saying is that, you’ve worked hard all day, and when you come home you need to relax.” This is followed up with a question about the kind of work he does. In another place, she responds to Rebecca saying “It can be difficult with two young ones.” This also helped the clients’ understand each other’s view points and concerns (Cramer, 2002). This also reassured the clients that the therapist was interested in their wellbeing, and encouraged them to be more honest and involved in the process. She also empathises directly with the concerns of both client’s and makes them feel that they are understood (Burnard, 1999). At this point it was evident that the counselling session was a place for both partners to air their concerns; and that there would be no favouritism shown. This was a really important issue, as in such cases it is possible for a particular spouse to feel ganged – up on. She did ask questions that brought out the thoughts of the clients; and was able to reach the root of the problem in this manner. She also did try to balance the two different opinions of the two partners and tried to do justice to the understanding of the issues and concerns of both partners. These techniques helped the couple understand the standpoints of the other and offer solutions to the issues that they were facing individually. This is adequately demonstrated at the point where in helping Michel compare Rebecca’s situation to his own at work, the therapist helps him identify the legitimacy of Rebecca asking for help; and that help from sources other than him would also be welcome to Rebecca. When Michel said “if I’m running behind .... Need to get the job done on time. If I can’t.... I would put off other jobs and ... get help ... “the therapist said “I just wonder, if you were put in the same situation with Rebecca, ... how should she handle this?” this perspective helps Michel see the potential issues that Rebecca may face and finds a solution of hiring a house cleaner; which Rebecca also welcomes enthusiastically (Allwood, Traum, and Jokinen, 2000). This part of the session also helps Rebecca understand that she does not want her husband to do housework; as much as she wants help in some form so that things are properly done. At this point, she also helps Rebecca realise that she also needs to step up and take responsibility by keeping a roster to use or making a priority list. It may be stated that the therapist did use the model given by David (1989: TAFE NSW, 1993) effectively through the session, wherein she first identified and isolated the opinions of both parties, prioritised the needs of each, and the mutual needs; help the couple generate possible solutions and accept their own responsibilities, and finally to choose a workable option that both partners agreed upon to test for a finite period of time (two weeks). Weaknesses On the flip side; the therapist did flounder for a while in the middle of the session; and was unable to provide any valuable input towards the problem – solving process at one point. She repeated herself, and did not provide valuable input to the concerns, and seemed stumped. This is demonstrated when she keeps saying “So... um... so you want... um you want to...”. And then almost repeats that pervious part of the conversation again. Allowing such experiences to be visible to the client reduces the trust the clients have in the therapist; and also reduces their own motivation to work at the issue. (Bolton, 1987) The therapist also seemed less confident and depicted nervous body language at various points during the session. There are various times when the video shows the therapist fiddling with her hands and adjusting her clothes – classic examples for nervous gestures. Such cues get picked up by the clients, and can further cause reduction in their motivation to work at the problems at hand. It is necessary that any confusion or stress felt by the counsellor or therapist should be hidden from the clients. A major flaw is that throughout the session, the therapist did not encourage the couple to interact directly at all (Allwood, Traum, and Jokinen, 2000); and most of the discussion that occurred was between her and Rebecca or her and Michel. While this is useful in the process of negotiating the particular issues that there presented; it does not allow the husband and wife to develop and practice techniques of healthy communication which would allow them to be able to resolve issues in the future (Feeney, 2002). This issue is particularly a flaw given that both Rebecca and Michel were participating towards conflict resolution on their own. Conclusion When analyzing the session from the perspective of Johnson and Johnson’s (1997) steps in negotiating resolutions for conflicts of interest; we find that the therapist did help the couple experience the exact opinions of the other spouse and understand the nature of their opposition, as well as help them in jointly defining the problems and issues that they wished to focus on. She helped them in communicating their feelings and opinions, and using active listening techniques like repeating and paraphrasing she helped them empathise with the opinions of the other. This empathy did help in coming up with co-operative solutions that worked for both parties since they are now able to understand each other’s issues as well as their own. As a leader, the therapist did help the couple negotiate and take responsibility to some extent (Wilson, Hantz, and Hanna, 1992); and reach an agreement about the actions that would help in resolving the problems at hand. Thus we see that the therapist in this scenario did act as a good negotiator and played the role of an Influencer – type negotiator as described by the Conflict Resolution Network. While there is significant scope for improvement of abilities and skills; it is also possible to accept that the attempt at acting as a negotiator who helps two parties come on to the same plane and find common goals and solutions was met to some extent with success by the therapist. Having said that, it is necessary that practice and effort are applied to the flaws that have been highlighted through this analysis. References Allwood, J. Traum, D. and Jokinen, K. 2000. Cooperation, dialogue and ethics. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 53:60, 871-914. Bolton, R. 1987. People Skills: How to Assert Yourself, Listen to Others and Resolve Conflict. Sydney: Simon and Schuster. Burnard, P. 1999. Counselling Skills for Health Professionals (3rd edn) London: Chapman and Hall. Cramer, D. 2002. Relationship satisfaction and conflict over minor and major issues in romantic relationships. The Journal of Psychology, 136: 1. 75-81. Covey, S.R. 1991. Principle-centred leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster. DeVito, J.A. 2001. The Interpersonal Communication Book (9th edn.) New York: Longman. Devito, J.A. 2006. The Interpersonal Communication Book, International Edition (11 th edn.) Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon. Feeney, J.A. 2002. Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction: A diary study. Personal Relationships, 9, 39-55. Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam. Hybels, S. and Weaver, R.L. 1988. Communicating Effectively. New York: Random House. Johnson, J.W. and Johnson E.P. 2000. Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills (7th edn.) New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Sprecher, S. and Toro-Morn, M. 2002. A study of men and women from different sides of earth to determine if men are from Mars and women are from Venus in their beliefs about love and romantic relationships. Sex Roles, 46:5-6, 131-147. Wilson, G., Hantz, A. and Hanna, M. 1992. Interpersonal Growth Through Communication. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Publishers. Read More