D577 Task 2 Communication Techniques Reflection Example

What I Said When the Deadline Slipped: A Reflection on Communication and Conflict Techniques Used Across Three Team Simulations and What They Did for Trust

Student Name

Leavitt School of Health, Western Governors University

D577: Team Dynamics, Task 2

Course Instructor

Month Day, Year

What I Said When the Deadline Slipped: A Reflection on Communication and Conflict Techniques Used Across Three Team Simulations and What They Did for Trust

Introduction

Communication techniques are easy to name and harder to use when a teammate is frustrated or a deadline is close. This reflection describes three team simulations completed in this course, identifies the specific communication and conflict resolution techniques I used in each, explains what I said and how teammates responded, and evaluates how those techniques affected trust and the team's outcomes. It ends with what I will carry into real teams.

Simulation 1: The Slipping Deadline

In the first simulation, I led a four-person team preparing a grant proposal for a youth mentoring program. Two days before the deadline, a teammate playing the budget analyst announced that the budget would be late because the finance office had not sent salary figures.

Technique used: active listening with paraphrasing. My first impulse was to ask why the budget analyst had waited so long to tell us. Instead I said, So the salary numbers are the piece you are waiting on, and without them the budget cannot be finished. Is that right? The teammate relaxed visibly and added a detail she had not mentioned: she could estimate salaries from last year's figures with a margin of about 3%. Paraphrasing slowed me down, showed that I had heard her and invited information that solved the problem.

Outcome: we submitted on time using estimated figures with a note, and the teammate later said she had expected to be blamed. Research on trust in organizations describes trust as a willingness to be vulnerable to another person based on beliefs about their ability, benevolence and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995). My response signaled benevolence at a moment when she expected criticism, which made her more willing to share information.

Simulation 2: The Quiet Teammate

In the second simulation, one teammate on a five-person product team had contributed almost nothing for a week. Two teammates wanted to report him to the manager.

Techniques used: an I-statement and an open question, delivered privately. I messaged him directly and said, I have noticed you have been quiet in our last three meetings, and I am concerned we are missing your ideas on the customer survey. What would make it easier for you to jump in? He replied that he had been assigned to the survey without being asked and had no experience with survey design. I-statements describe the speaker's observation and feeling rather than accusing the other person, which lowers defensiveness. The open question shifted the conversation from blame to barriers.

Outcome: we paired him with a teammate who had survey experience, and he took over data analysis, where he was strong. This simulation reinforced a lesson from research on psychological safety: people speak up more readily on teams where they trust that a question or mistake will not be held against them (Edmondson, 1999). A private, curious approach created that safety for one person.

Simulation 3: Two Plans, One Choice

In the third simulation, my team had to choose between two plans for reorganizing a clinic's patient intake. Two teammates each favored a different plan, and the discussion turned into repeated arguments for positions.

Technique used: interest-based problem solving. I asked each teammate to set aside their plan for five minutes and name what they most needed any plan to achieve. One needed shorter waiting room times; the other needed fewer registration errors. Fisher et al. (2011) argue that negotiators reach better agreements when they focus on underlying interests rather than positions, because interests often have more than one way to be satisfied. Once the interests were visible, the team combined the self-check-in kiosks from one plan with the verification step from the other.

What I would do differently: I let the argument continue for nearly ten minutes before stepping in. Earlier intervention would have saved time and reduced frustration, and one teammate remained cooler toward the other for the rest of the simulation. Research has found that relationship conflict is especially harmful to team member satisfaction (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003), so catching a task disagreement before it becomes personal matters.

Patterns Across the Simulations

Three patterns stand out. First, every effective technique involved slowing down: paraphrasing before reacting, asking before assuming, naming interests before choosing. Second, trust grew fastest when a teammate expected blame and received curiosity instead. Third, my weakest moments came when I waited too long, allowing tension to build. My tendency is to avoid conflict until it is obvious, and the simulations showed that early, low-key intervention works better than late, forceful intervention.

A fourth pattern concerns my own reactions. In each simulation my first internal response was defensive or impatient, and the useful technique came only after a pause. Naming that pattern matters because I cannot always rely on having time to think. Practicing the techniques until they are habits, rather than choices I make under pressure, is the next step in my development as a team member.

Applying These Skills in Real Teams

I work as a unit secretary on a busy medical floor, where miscommunication between shifts causes real problems. I plan to use paraphrasing during shift handoffs, confirming the most important item back to the outgoing secretary. When a coworker seems disengaged, I will use a private I-statement and open question rather than raising it in front of others. When disagreements arise about workflow, I will ask each person what they need the process to achieve before debating solutions. I will also set myself a rule to speak up within the first few minutes of a heated exchange rather than waiting.

Conclusion

Across three simulations, active listening, I-statements with open questions and interest-based problem solving turned potential blame into information, engagement and a combined solution. Each technique built trust by showing benevolence and safety at moments of tension. The main lesson for my own growth is timing: the same techniques work better when used early.

References

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335