According to Zastrow and Hessenauer (2019), our perceptions determine how we interpret the messages we receive during communication. There are
several factors that can affect our perception, including defense mechanisms, which are socio-psychological factors that can influence what we perceive
and, in many cases, derail effective communication.Identify the defense mechanism at work, explain your reasoning, then use Gibb’s analysis of defensive communication to explain how the defensiveness might be overcome.
An employer tells a recent college graduate that they know more because they went to the “school of hard knocks,” and “you think you’re better than the rest of us—well, I’ve got news for you—you’re not! I’ve forgotten more than you will ever know about this business!”
The defense mechanism at work here is reaction formation. This occurs when a person suppresses their true feelings and instead expresses the exact opposite of what they are actually thinking or feeling (Zastrow & Hessenauer 2019). In this case, the employer may be expressing defensive behavior due to their own insecurities and fears about being replaced by someone younger and more educated than them.
In terms of overcoming this defensiveness, Gibb’s model suggests that the first step is for both parties to identify and recognize that a communication breakdown has occurred due to one or both of them becoming defensive (Gibb 1981). Once this has been established, it is important for both people involved to express understanding as well as acceptance for each other’s perspectives which should help reduce tensions between them (Gibb 1981). Additionally it would be beneficial for the defensive party to reflect on why they feel threatened in order to gain insight into their underlying motivations. Through this process they can come up with more constructive ways of dealing with negative emotions while fostering healthier dialogue within their relationships.
Ultimately, these steps rely heavily on open communication which requires individuals to be honest with themselves as well as each other if any real progress is going to be made. However, if followed properly they should provide a framework through which productive conversations can occur even during times when tensions are high.
regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall lumps of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can change broadly (Miller, 1956). Anyway it’s anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option huge pieces right away, somewhat that as each piece turns out to be more natural, it very well may be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recollected itself. Recoding is the interaction by which individual pieces are ‘recoded’ and allocated to lumps. Consequently the ends that can be drawn from Miller’s unique work is that, while there is an acknowledged breaking point to the quantity of pieces of data that can be put away in prompt (present moment) memory, how much data inside every one of those lumps can be very high, without unfavorably influencing the review of similar number