Chris Han, Elysha Tsai, Francis Park, Iris Yip
Reflections
Chris Han
I think for this class activity it was actually easier than normal to admit and share my “shortcomings” to my group. Because these “lackings” are not a part of who I am but rather just simply an area I need to grow in, it was a lot easier to share without feeling super vulnerable. It was actually harder to find an area I believed I was competent in, however. I think because I am constantly learning and understanding that I have far much more to learn, I never really took the time to pinpoint what I was good at.
It was really nice to hear the growth and also the competent areas of my fellow classmates, each taking on a different role in the conversation. I found that it was hard, however, to only stick to the role I was assigned because it did not help instigate the conversation naturally. I believe good conversations happen when people feel comfortable and are not limited in any way. Conversation is led thought-based, not topic-based.
Elysha Tsai
Even when clearly designated a role, I found it unnatural to only think from the perspective of my role. I instead listened “normally” and picked out relevant information related to the expectation of my role’s response — like answering a textbook question versus looking for the answer in the textbook after reading the question. Reflecting on this behavior, I realized that I am naturally inclined to gather as much information as possible before synthesizing them — this made the Head Chair role a natural fit for my default listening style. Out of all the listening roles I took on, however, the Heart Chair role made me feel like I was providing the most value to the Speaker in the moment. I found myself connecting the Speaker’s words with real-life experiences and naturally tried to comfort and empower the Speaker. I felt the least supportive as the Will Chair. What benefit does providing a numerical evaluation of their motivation do for their goals and areas of growth? As a speaker, I craved empathy and individual perspective rather than static evaluations of “will.”
When it was my turn to be the Speaker. I felt uncomfortable and vulnerable speaking. I ended up filling the silence of my 2 minutes by discussing areas I felt more competent in, because I was more comfortable sharing my competencies over areas of growth. In some ways, the brief silence between my prepared response and improvised speech solidified the angst and negativity.
Francis Park
Before the four chairs activity, I never fully considered the roles we take on during even the simplest of communications and the opportunities that come from them. Although I’d always considered myself to be a fairly good communicator, when put in the Speaker Chair, I noticed how convservative I became with my answers. My initial written answer fell very short from the two minutes allotted, and though it was not a requirement to fill my time, I felt pressured to but had trouble elaborating my ideas. Was it because of how personal the nature of my answer was? Conversely, I had a much easier time listening while in the Head, Heart and Will chair, albeit for different reasons each round. I found myself much more engaged and in tune with the flow of the conversations when being able to view from a more objective standpoint, my personal emotions removed and being a listener. My ability to retell facts as the Head, or dig a little deeper as the Heart, or determine the Speaker’s motivation as the Will, was so contrasted to my flustered stuttering that occurred throughout my time as the Speaker. Being conscious of how I felt competent in some areas and maybe fell behind in others, and then receiving responses from those who were there solely to listen made me vulnerable. This played a huge part in putting one’s responsibility as a speaker and listener into perspective. Being able to differentiate between my reactions from this response helps me to better understand the importance of close listening and being open to new observations and input to further inform my own thoughts and practices.
Iris Yip
It was interesting to try and only respond from one perspective (i.e., ‘chair’) each round rather than thinking about what was being presented more holistically. In that way, I found it to be a good exercise in compartmentalizing my thoughts. Being ‘forced’ to only really comment on a singular aspect actually helped me focus and become a more active listener as I would be more conscious of what the other chair(s) said and how it contributed to the overall response as a whole.
When discussing my own initial response, I found it a lot more challenging to be concise and felt the need to justify my thoughts more, even though I was still trying to make out what my thoughts were to myself in hindsight. Also, as someone who often tends to reflect on this topic through abstract terms (i.e., feelings and emotions), it was a bit hard to translate everything I wanted to say through language. I constantly felt like I was overcomplicating the issue and tended to backpedal a lot when speaking. In contrast, the limitations I had as the other roles made it easier for me to communicate succinctly and show less hesitation when it came to commenting, though a lot of that undoubtedly also has to do with how much easier it was to distance myself from the issues of my friends and classmates when I could look it at more objectively or with a singular focus devoid of unnecessary context.
That being said, my individual thoughts regarding my particular reflection were a lot clearer after a couple of rounds of being the listener/commenter. Fundamentally, I think that taking on different roles that included a predetermined parameter for commentary helped me get into the appropriate mindset to think about my own issues with the same type of focus and objectivity as I had with others, rather than being clouded by more emotionally driven factors.
