Key Learning and Learning Challenges- Self Reflection Writeup Sample



  • Identify key learning and learning challenges. Pay particular attention when new learning resonates and when new learning creates inner conflict with your own world view and mental models.

  • Map key insights to professional competencies and your own professional development, in terms of your own strengths and weaknesses.

  • Reflect on experience with conflict, such as teamwork and in particular your team process and your contribution to both process and outcomes (team reflections are a suggestion – not mandatory).

  • Explore implications for your professional development as a conflict management practitioner.

  • Integrate theory with practice throughout the paper.

This paper must include at least 6 references from the course – at least 3 from required readings and 3 from optional readings – and must add here to the latest APA standards.

Self Reflection


My goal is to pass this course. Unlike my teammates high grades are not a priority for me. However, I am pressured to get good grades so I don’t affect my teammate’s marks. I am trying my best to make my contribution to the team within my limitation. Hopefully my team sees that I am trying my best.

Since I am just in the learning phase, I am not sure what to reflect upon. Every team members have different experience; different perspective. The exercise which was given has helped the team members in facilitating communication among the team members and has helped in relating to real case scenarios.

Everyone in the team contributed to the assignments. The team members are very encouraging which I really do appreciate. Especially, I appreciate Gianpierro, whom we sometimes call GP. I appreciate him because of his positive attitude and leadership. I felt it necessary and my intuition told me to mention it so I just did. I don’t care if it’s right or wrong.

Although I’m not fully learnt about the course, I am grateful for this course. I hope that with the help of this course, I can provide some contribution from my side towards the betterment of the society or community in the days to come whenever something clicks or puzzle comes in. Therefore I am thankful for this course.


I would really want to work on some of my limitations which are my communication skills and laziness. I sometimes get too lazy to work and I have a poor communication skill, because of my fear. However, there are many other limitations that I would like to improve. That being said, I am thankful for what I have learned and now aware of.

Lecture Handouts



Introduction: The Definition of Murder

The actus reus requirements of murder are:

  1. The victim must have been a ‘person in being’

  2. The victim’s death must have been caused by an act (or possibly omission) of the defendant

[NB. The death must have occurred within the Queen’s Peace]

The mens rea of murder is:

C. An intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm

A. The Victim Must Have Been a ‘Person in Being’

  1. When does a foetus become a ‘person in being’?

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245 HL

Re A (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2000] 4 All ER 961.

  1. In the eyes of the criminal law, when is a person dead?

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 HL

B. The Victim’s Death Must Have Been Caused By an Act (Or Possibly Omission) of the Defendant

The Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996

otherwise, see handouts on omissions and causation

[The Death Must Have Occurred within the Queen’s Peace]

C. The Defendant Must Have Had an Intention To Kill Or To Cause Grievous Bodily Harm

Cunningham [1982] AC 566 HL (defendant struck man on head with chair, fracturing his skill and killing him)

  1. An intention to cause grievous bodily harm will suffice for the mens rea of murder – is this too broad?

I find it passing strange that a person can be convicted of murder if death results from, say, his intentional breaking of another’s arm, an action which, while undoubtedly involving the infliction of ‘really serious harm’ and, as such, calling for severe punishment, would in most cases be unlikely to kill. And yet, for the lesser offence of attempted murder, nothing less than an intent to kill will suffice. But I recognise the force of the contrary view that the outcome of intentionally inflicting serious harm can be so unpredictable that anyone prepared to act so wickedly has little ground for complaint if, where death results, he is convicted and punished as severely as one who intended to kill” (per Lord Edmund-Davies in Cunningham (supra))

In English law a defendant may be convicted of murder who is in no ordinary sense a murderer. It is sufficient if it is established that the defendant had an intent to cause really serious bodily injury. This rule turns murder into a constructive crime. The fault element does not correspond to the conduct leading to the charge, i.e. the causing of death. A person is liable to conviction for a more serious crime than he foresaw or contemplated … What is the justification for this position? There is an argument that, given the unpredictability whether a serious injury will result in death, an offender who intended to cause serious bodily injury cannot complain of a conviction of murder in the event of a death. But this argument is outweighed by the practical consideration that immediately below murder there is the crime of manslaughter for which the court may impose a discretionary life sentence or a very long period of imprisonment … The present definition of the mental element of murder results in defendants being classified as murderers who are not in truth murderers … It results in the imposition of mandatory life sentences when neither justice nor the needs of society require the classification of the case as murder and the imposition of a mandatory life sentence” (per Lord Steyn in Powell & Daniels [1997] 4 All ER 545 HL)

My Lords, murder is widely thought to be the gravest of crimes. One could expect a developed system to embody a law of murder clear enough to yield an unequivocal result on a given set of facts, a result which conforms with apparent justice and has a sound intellectual base. This is not so in England, where the law of homicide is permeated by anomaly, fiction, misnomer and obsolete reasoning. One conspicuous anomaly is the [gbh rule] … It is, therefore, possible to commit a murder not only without wishing the death of the victim but without the least thought that this might be the result of the assault. Many would doubt the justice of this rule, which is not the popular conception of murder and (as I shall suggest) no longer rests on any intellectual foundation. The law of Scotland does very well without it, and England could perhaps do the same. It would, however, be fruitless to debate this here, since the rule has been established beyond doubt by Cunningham” (per Lord Mustill in Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) (supra))

Law Commission Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide, Law Comm. No. 304 (2006):

(1) First degree murder (mandatory life penalty)

(a) Killing intentionally.

(b) Killing where there was an intention to do serious injury,

with an awareness of a serious risk of causing death.

The wider recommendations in the Law Commission’s report may be considered at a later stage of the review.’ (Ministry of Justice, Murder, Manslaughter, Infanticide: Proposals for Reform of the Law, Consultation Paper, CP1908, 2008 at p 5).

  1. Only intention will suffice for the mens rea of murder – is this too narrow?

[W]e do not believe [incorporating recklessness in the mens rea for murder] will sustain a morally defensible boundary between murder and manslaughter…The law would be too broad because reckless drivers or electricians who knew that their work had been sloppy would almost automatically become murderers if their conduct led to a death. (Law Commission Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide, Law Comm. No. 304 (2006), paras 2.13-6).

[A killing amounts to murder if it displays] such wicked recklessness as to imply a disposition depraved enough to be regardless of the consequences” (Macdonald, Criminal Law (5th edn.) at p89 – describing Scots law)

[Murder includes killing] recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life” (American Law Institute, Model Penal Code s210.2(1)(b))

[T]o say that ‘A is guilty of murder when he kills with wicked recklessness’ means only ‘A is guilty of murder when he kills with such recklessness that he deserves to be treated as a murderer” (Gordon, Criminal Law of Scotland (2nd edn.) at p737)

It is neither satisfactory nor desirable to distort [general principles] in order to deal with the reckless terrorist and other ‘wickedly’ reckless killers, who will, in any event, be liable to imprisonment for life [i.e., for manslaughter]” (House of Lords, Report of the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment (supra) at para 76)

This may be seen as a victory for the ‘rule of law’ values of certainty and predictability over the merits of a vague test which would not only allow juries to reflect the subtler shades of moral and social culpability but also invite juries to return verdicts based on a distaste for the defendant’s background, allegiance or general activities” (Ashworth, ‘Reforming The Law Of Murder’ [1990] Crim LR 75)

Loss of Control


  • A special defence to murder

  • A partial defence to murder

Law Commission Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (2006)

Coroners and Justice Act 2009

S. 54 Partial defence to murder: loss of control

(1) Where a person (“D”) kills or is a party to the killing of another (“V”), D is not to be convicted of murder if—

(a) D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self-control,

(b) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and

(c) a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), it does not matter whether or not the loss of control was sudden.

(3) In subsection (1)(c) the reference to “the circumstances of D” is a reference to all of D’s circumstances other than those whose only relevance to D’s conduct is that they bear on D’s general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint.

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply if, in doing or being a party to the killing, D acted in a considered desire for revenge.

(5) On a charge of murder, if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to the defence under subsection (1), the jury must assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to the defence if evidence is adduced on which, in the opinion of the trial judge, a jury, properly directed, could reasonably conclude that the defence might apply.

(7) A person who, but for this section, would be liable to be convicted of murder is liable instead to be convicted of manslaughter.

(8) The fact that one party to a killing is by virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of murder does not affect the question whether the killing amounted to murder in the case of any other party to it.

S. 55 Meaning of “qualifying trigger”

(1) This section applies for the purposes of section 54.

(2) A loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger if subsection (3), (4) or (5) applies.

(3) This subsection applies if D’s loss of self-control was attributable to D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person.

(4) This subsection applies if D’s loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both) which—

(a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and

(b)caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

(5) This subsection applies if D’s loss of self-control was attributable to a combination of the matters mentioned in subsections (3) and (4).

(6) In determining whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger—

(a) D’s fear of serious violence is to be disregarded to the extent that it was caused by a thing which D incited to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence;

(b) a sense of being seriously wronged by a thing done or said is not justifiable if D incited the thing to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence;

(c) the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded.

(7) In this section references to “D” and “V” are to be construed in accordance with section 54.

Interpretation of Section 55

R v Clinton, Parker & Evans [2012] EWCA Crim 2

R v Dawes [2013] EWCA Crim 322

R v Asmelash [2013] EWCA Crim 157 (D intoxicated when he intentionally killed V. CA held intoxication could not be taken into account when applying the S.54(1)(c) test)

Diminished Responsibility

  • A special defence to murder

  • A partial defence to murder

  • Reversed burden of proof

Coroners and Justice Act 2009

S.52 Persons suffering from diminished responsibility (England and Wales)

(1) In section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 (c. 11) (persons suffering from diminished responsibility), for subsection (1) substitute—

(1) A person (“D”) who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which—

(a) arose from a recognised medical condition,

(b) substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1A), and

(c) provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.

(1A) Those things are—

(a) to understand the nature of D’s conduct;

(b) to form a rational judgment;

(c) to exercise self-control.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), an abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D’s conduct if it causes, or is a significant contributory factor in causing, D to carry out that conduct.”


To an extent, the wide scope of involuntary manslaughter is a function of the complete sentencing discretion that judges are permitted at common law; D may receive anything from an absolute discharge to life imprisonment. If judges had accepted as a restraining principle that the minimum culpability requirement for manslaughter should, at least normally, be such as to merit a substantial custodial sentence, we would have narrower and more defensible law of manslaughter” (Simester & Sullivan, Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine (3rd ed)).

  1. Unlawful Act (or Constructive) Manslaughter

  2. Gross Negligence Manslaughter

  1. Reckless Manslaughter]

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

[A]n accused is guilty of manslaughter if it is proved that he intentionally did an act which was unlawful and dangerous and that that act inadvertently caused death” (per Lord Salmon in DPP v Newbury & Jones [1976] 2 All ER 365 HL)

  1. The defendant intentionally did an act

  2. The act was unlawful

  3. The act was dangerous

  4. The act (inadvertently) caused death

1. The Defendant Intentionally Did An Act

[A]n accused is guilty of manslaughter if it is proved that he intentionally did an act which was unlawful and dangerous … [I]t is unnecessary to prove that the accused knew that the act was unlawful or dangerous” (per Lord Salmon in Newbury & Jones (supra))

2. The Act Was Unlawful

  • The distinction between an unlawful act and a negligently performed lawful act

There is an obvious difference in the law of manslaughter between doing an unlawful act and doing a lawful act with a degree of carelessness which the legislature makes criminal” (per Lord Atkin in Andrews v D.P.P. [1937] AC 576 HL)

  • The meaning of ‘unlawful’

Franklin (1883) 15 Cox CC 163 Sussex Assizes (defendant throws a box into the sea whilst walking along Brighton pier, killing a swimmer underneath)

[I]t seems to me … that the mere fact of a civil wrong committed by one person against another ought not to be used as an incident which is a necessary step in a criminal case” (per Field J in Franklin (supra))

Lamb [1967] 2 All ER 1282 CA (defendant playing around with friend – points revolver at friend – three of the five chambers in the revolver were empty – defendant mistakenly thought it was safe to pull the trigger – friend shot dead)

It is perhaps as well to mention that when using the phrase ‘unlawful in the criminal sense of that word’ the court has in mind that it is long settled that it is not in point to consider whether an act is unlawful merely from the angle of civil liabilities” (per Sachs LJ in Lamb (supra))

3. The Act Was Dangerous

  • The meaning of ‘dangerous’

In judging whether the act was dangerous, the test is not did the accused recognise that it was dangerous but would all sober and reasonable people recognise its danger” (per Lord Salmon in D.P.P. v Newbury & Jones (supra))

[T]he unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm” (per Edmund Davies J in Church [1965] 2 All ER 72 CA)

  • What knowledge may be ascribed to the reasonable man?

Bristow [2013] EWECA Crim 1540 (defendants burgle business premises on secluded farm at night. Victim interrupts the defendants who drive into, and kill, him as they try to escape)

What needed to be considered was the foresight of the participants as they embarked upon the crime, and what, if anything a reasonable bystander would inevitably have recognised as a risk of physical harm to any person intervening.’ (per Treacy LJ in Dawson at p 37)

Dawson [1985] 81 Cr App R 150 CA (defendants rob petrol station using imitation firearm and pickaxe handle – petrol station attendant, who suffers from coronary illness, suffers a fatal heart attack after the robbers have gone)

This test can only be undertaken upon the basis of the knowledge gained by a sober and reasonable man as though he were present at the scene of and watched the unlawful act being performed and who knows that, as in the present case, an unloaded replica gun was in use, but that the victim may have thought it was a loaded gun in working order. In other words, he has the same knowledge as the man attempting to rob and no more. It was never suggested that any of these applicants knew that their victim had a bad heart. They knew nothing about him” (per Watkins LJ in Dawson (supra))

Carey [2006] Crim LR 842 (15 year-old victim approached by three defendants and was punched by one. Victim ran away but she had diseased heart and the running caused her to collapse and die later that night.)

‘…it would not have been recognised by a sober and reasonable bystander that an apparently healthy 15-year-old…was at risk of suffering shock as a result of this affray.’ (per Dyson LJ in Carey at p 37.)

Watson [1989] Crim LR 733 CA (defendant breaks into home of victim – who is a frail 87 year-old man – and physically abuses the victim, who later dies of a heart attack)

The judge clearly took the view that the jury were entitled to ascribe to the bystander the knowledge which the appellant gained during the whole of his stay in the house and so directed them … The unlawful act in the present circumstances comprised the whole of the burglarious intrusion and did not come to an end upon the appellant’s foot crossing the threshold or windowsill. That being so, the appellant (and therefore the bystander) during the course of the unlawful act must have become aware of Mr Moyler’s frailty and approximate age, and the judge’s directions were accordingly correct” (per Lord Lane CJ in Watson (supra))

Ball [1989] Crim LR 730 CA (defendant argued with victim and then shot her as she ran away – he mistakenly thought the cartridge in the gun was a blank)

[I]n our judgment Dawson’s case goes no further than showing that the sober and reasonable man must look at the unlawful act to see if it is dangerous and not at peculiarities of the victim … [T]he question whether the act is a dangerous one is to be judged not by the appellant’s appreciation but by that of the sober and reasonable man, and it is impossible to impute into his appreciation the mistaken belief of the appellant that what he was doing was not dangerous because he thought he had a blank cartridge in the chamber. At that stage the appellant’s intention, foresight or knowledge is irrelevant” (per Stuart-Smith LJ in Ball (supra))

4. The Act (Inadvertently) Caused Death

[See lecture handout on ‘Causation’]

Finally …

In the judgment of this Court, where the charge of manslaughter is based on an unlawful and dangerous act, it must be directed at the victim and likely to cause immediate injury, however slight” (per Waller LJ in Dalby (1982) 74 Cr App R 348 CA)

All that need be proved is that [the defendant] intentionally did what he did, that the death was caused by it and that applying an objective test, all sober and reasonable people would recognise the risk that some harm would result … [Certain cases] suggest that the defendant cannot be found guilty of this crime unless his unlawful and dangerous act was directed at the person who was the ultimate victim of it. I am not persuaded that … [this] proposition is borne out by the authorities” (per Lord Hope in Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245 HL)

Mitchell [1983] QB 741 CA (defendant starts fight in a crowded post office – elderly lady is crushed to death in the resulting fracas)


Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 HL (during an operation the anaesthetist fails to realise that the tube supplying oxygen to the patient has become disconnected – patient suffers cardiac arrest and dies)

On this basis in my opinion the ordinary principles of the law of negligence apply to ascertain whether or not the defendant has been in breach of a duty of care towards the victim who has died. If such breach of duty is established the next question is whether that breach of duty caused the death of the victim. If so, the jury must go on to consider whether that breach of duty should be characterised as gross negligence and therefore as a crime. This will depend on the seriousness of the breach of duty committed by the defendant in all the circumstances in which the defendant was placed when it occurred. The jury will have to consider whether the extent to which the defendant’s conduct departed from the proper standard of care incumbent upon him, involving as it must have done a risk of death to the patient, was such that it should be judged criminal” (per Lord Mackay in Adomako (supra))

  1. The defendant must have breached a duty of care which he owed to the victim

  2. The defendant’s breach of duty must have caused the death of the victim

  3. The breach of duty must have been so serious that it can be characterised as gross negligence and therefore as a crime

Wacker [2002] EWCA Crim 1944 (D was a driver who hid 60 Chinese immigrants in his lorry to help them enter the UK illegally. D closes an air vent to reduce risk of detection and 58 of the people died of suffocation.)

‘…we have no difficulty in concluding that in these circumstances the defendant did voluntarily assume the duty of care for the Chinese…The duty to take care cannot, as a matter of public policy, be permitted to be affected by the countervailing demands of the criminal enterprise.’ (per Kay LJ in Wacker at p 38-9.)

Singh (Gurphal) [1999] Crim LR 582) “The circumstances must be such that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk not merely of injury or even serious injury but of death” (trial judge’s direction – approved by the Court of Appeal in Singh (Gurphal) [1999] Crim LR 582)

Mark (Alan James) [2004] EWCA Crim 2490 CA – The question is whether the reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of death, not whether the defendant foresaw it.

Misra [2004] EWCA Crim 2375 CA, paras 64, 65

In our judgment the law is clear. The ingredients of the offence have been clearly defined, and the principles decided in the House of Lords in Adomako. They involve no uncertainty. The hypothetical citizen, seeking to know his position, would be advised that, assuming he owed a duty of care to the deceased which he had negligently broken, and that death resulted, he would be liable to conviction for manslaughter if, on the available evidence, the jury was satisfied that his negligence was gross … Although, to a limited extent, Lord Mackay accepted that there was an element of circularity in the process by which the jury would arrive at its verdict, the element of circularity which he identified did not then and does not now result in uncertainty which offends against Article 7, nor if we may say so, any principle of common law” (per Judge LJ in Misra [2004] EWCA Crim 2375 CA, paras 64, 65)

Should an anaesthetist, doing his hapless and inadequate best, receive a custodial sentence for the disastrous consequences of his ineptitude? Yes, it might be answered, if he was capable of doing better or had reason to know that he was not up to the demands of his job. A negative response would be made by those who would restrict imprisonment to persons who choose to harm the interests of others” (Simester & Sullivan, Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine (2nd edn.) at p371)


[The decision in Singh (Gurphal)] clarifies one of the problems with the speech of Lord Mackay in Adomako by requiring a risk in respect of which D was negligent to have been one of death rather than any lesser degree of harm. If D, however, is reckless as to a lesser degree of harm and causes V’s death, this may amount to reckless manslaughter – a category of manslaughter left open by Lord Mackay which forms the focus of considerable academic speculation although not featuring in the law reports. The circumstances in which manslaughter by recklessness might arise are very narrow (perhaps even non-existent) as most conceivable situations in which D’s reckless act causes V’s death will fit within the bounds of constructive manslaughter” (Michael Allen, Elliott & Wood’s Cases and Materials on Criminal Law (8th edn.) at p598)





Key Learning and Challenges

There are myriads of ways by which you can tackle learning. It can be through reading books or actually delving into the world and finding out new ways that you can increase your knowledge as well what all might act as inhibitors for it. Though there are multiple models and theories that try to tackle the various learning processes I believe it is through your actual experiences that you can truly grasp or reject something. If I would try to implement the key learning I have achieved I would need to refer to the recent experiences that I had. As part of the group that I have been put in, I have been able to work with a group of people for multiple assignments. It is here that I understood that every person tries to tackle a situation in a different way that is more suited to his/her type of learning and if you are able to create a situation in which he can achieve the result that you need by using his own style that not only makes the result much more easily achievable but also makes the process much more exciting for the individual. However, this also does end up being a comfort zone sometimes. However, there are a lot of things that a group learning promotes to a high degree, the participatory values that a group entails helped me to not only get more confidence and commitment to the group but also increased the powers of reasoning and helped us to utilize multiple capabilities of the group members greatly. It helped us to get better integration of diverse goals and to hone on the ideas that each individual has (Kaner, S (2014). ‘The Dynamics of Group Decision Making’) . On the other hand, there are also some challenges that I have discovered during my course of learning. The inherent tendency of every one to excel in whatever doing has resulted in intense competition as well as expectation which may be quite burdensome and pressurizing. I believe this tendency not only inhibits the in-depth learning of a topic or enjoying this path of learning but creates a situation of a race where expectation rules laws and efficiency tends to take the higher ground and results in group of people who might be highly learned but devoid of the capability to enjoy what they have learned.

Key Insights

This way of learning that I have been exposed to for the last few days has a led to significant improvement of the various strengths and weaknesses. As was explained by me in the previous part my weakness was in the part that I had a low skill of communication which stemmed from the fact that negative reinforcement on multiple occasions had made me quite under confident for the same and also, I was quite lazy and generally left everything till the last. All this not only inhibited my natural learning curve but also resulted in my being less confident and thus less. However, on being part of this team, I have fallen in an environment where positive reinforcements are preferred as a way of doing things. I have seen on many occasions my teammates waiting for me to complete a sentence and take whatever I had said into thorough consideration completely ignoring the communicational problem that I might have had during the same. This has not only resulted in removing the consciousness that I had for this problem of mine but also has made me feel a valued member of the team. This is in very much tandem to the heavily proved operant process which promotes that a person who finds a positive reinforcement on anything or activity that he/she does is very much likely to continue or repeat that process and become more confident and efficient in it. This thus acts as an external stimulus that helps a person to advance in their learning process. Not only this the implementation of a working schedule that is strictly followed by the team has helped me to overcome my normal lazy regimen. Thus, many of my weaknesses have been strongly dealt with. As per my strength, I have felt that I have always had the knack to effectively mediate in case of any situation that was escalating to a conflict scenario. I am able to discern the type of dynamics that the struggle is going through and what type of cycle it might fall into and thus take effective measures against it (Alfred, Keith (2014). ’Relationship Dynamics in Disputes’). This exercises with the group and the various conflict situations that entailed it only helped me to strengthen this quality more

Experiences of Conflict and Teamwork

As a normal part of being in a team comprising of many different individuals a clash of various ideals is not only normal but also an important part of the improvement of the various members of the team. A team is a very simple example of social constructivism where every member learns a topic from one who is more knowledgeable than him on the same. However, that does not mean that the meetings are completely devoid of conflicts. Having contained individuals of various origin and characteristics I have seen in various types of conflict and the triggers or the vicious cycle that they entail. I have witnessed scenarios of confirmatory bias, naïve realism as well as accuser and excuser biases which if had been left unchecked would have wreaked havoc among not only the group dynamics but the individuals too. I have seen people taking the route of complaining before even confirming if his view of the other person’s motive is correct. However, in all this darkness, we have always been able to find out light by being effective mediators, by asking the warring parties to story tell their issues and to empathize with the other (United Nation (2018). ‘Guidance for Effective Mediation’). No matter how hard had the situation been we have always been able to find a way to take everyone together

Progression as a conflict management Professional

The multiple conflicts that happened in the group and the techniques that we have taken in order to not only mitigate it but use it to the development of the team has resulted in me seeing the various ways that are taken by the management professional to manage such conflicts and thus get a real-life experience for the same. In most of the cases that I have faced, I have been able to use a comprehensive conflict coaching model. I have in multiple of the scenarios tried to discern the cycle that this conflict may fall into and generally taken four steps to resolve them. In Step 1 I suggest both the parties to tell their stories to be followed by Step 2 where I request them to open a dialogue to discuss their viewpoint which generally results in an empathetic result. I follow it by Step 3 where I create a possible solution or vision that best suits the clients followed by that in Step 4 where we implement that as group. Doing these multiple times has only led to an increase in confidence in me, and I plan to implement this in any future scenario (Ross, Linkert (2013). ‘The Ways of Conflict Coaching’). All this experience in the real world I believe has made me well suited for any type of job of conflict management professional.


Alfred, Keith (2014). ’Relationship Dynamics in Disputes’ Retrieved


United Nation (2018). ‘Guidance for Effective Mediation’ Retrieved


Ross, Blinkert (2013). ‘The Ways of Conflict Coaching’ Retrieved from:

Ashton, P (2013). ‘Community through transformative Conflict Resolution’ Retrieved


Slomanson, W (2011). Fundamental perspectives in international law’ Retrieved


Kaner,S (2014). ‘The Dynamics of Group Decision Making’ Retrieved



Looking for best English Assignment Help. Whatsapp us at +16469488918 or chat with our chat representative showing on lower right corner or order from here. You can also take help from our Live Assignment helper for any exam or live assignment related assistance