Western Governors University C820: Conversation Recap Analysis

This assignment, submitted by a student, is a conversation recap focusing on a disagreement and its impact. The student describes a situation where they were accused of sharing confidential information, triggering a 'fight' bioreaction. The assignment analyzes the conversation using the four levels of the conversation meter (accuracy, pretense, authenticity) and provides examples of listening behaviors. It reflects on how listening differently could have improved the situation, emphasizing the importance of understanding needs, purpose, and concern to create value. The student discusses the importance of accuracy and authenticity in improving conversations. The assignment follows the structure outlined in the provided brief from Western Governors University, referencing course materials on bioreactions and the conversation meter.

Running head: DESCRIBING CONVERSATION
DESCRIBING CONVERSATIONS USING CONVERSATION METER AND
BIOREACTIONS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1DESCRIBING CONVERSATION
TASK 2
Select a conversation where you had a disagreement that had an impact on you and triggered
a bioreaction. The conversation could have been a long time ago or recently. (Demonstrate
professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.)
A. Explain what happened during the disagreement by answering the following
questions:
• Describe the situation that led to the conversation.
I was working as an intern in a tech office during high school breaks when one day
my HR called me and one of my colleagues to her office. She informed us that there has been
an unauthenticated login into both our portals from an unknown source. This led to the
conversation.
• When did you realize that there was a disagreement during the conversation?
I realized there was a disagreement during the conversation when she accused both of
us for sharing valuable confidential company information with an outsider and charged
penalties against us. Working together we often provide job backups to our colleagues and
therefore we have their login details as well. I realized there was a disagreement as I clearly
and vocally protested against the accusation whereas my colleague followed suit but rather
reluctantly.
• Describe a bioreaction(s) that was experienced during the disagreement.
My immediate bioreaction was fight as I was prepared to justify against the
accusation for I had not shared any login detail with any outsider. However, from what it

2DESCRIBING CONVERSATION
seemed, my colleague initially suffered the bioreaction freeze, as he took time and stuttered
to provide justification against the accusation.
• How did the conversation end?
The conversation ended by my colleague finally admitting to the HR that he had provided his
as well as my login details to a friend of his in an attempt to get the job done faster. This
points towards the bioreaction of appease as my colleague accepted the need of the situation
and worked accordingly.
B. Analyze the conversation by answering the following questions:
• Using the four levels of the conversation meter, what level were you listening at, and what
level was the other person listening at?
During the accusation that was being made, I was listening at the level of accuracy.
My colleague was listening at the level of pretense. The HR on the other hand was listening
at a level of authenticity. During providing justification too, I was at the level of accuracy and
the HR was at the level of authenticity whereas my colleague shifted from pretense to
sincerity by admitting his actions.
• Give examples of two factors that describe how you and they were listening in at these
levels in the conversation meter: feelings, behaviors, language, or tone.
I was listening at the level of accuracy. The factors that describe how I was doing it
were my attentive behavior and questioning tone which I employed in order to gather more
facts regarding the entire situation. I asked questions regarding date and time of login in order

3DESCRIBING CONVERSATION
to look for factual evidence as to whether or not I would have had been able to login during
the said time.
My colleague was listening at the level of pretense. It was proved by the unsure tone
of his voice as well as when he said that he did not share login information with any outsider
whereas he himself admitted to sharing later.
My HR was listening at the level of authenticity as when we were providing
justification she did not interrupt and rather asked detailed questions about our actions as well
as what were important to us in this case.
• What were your points of alignment or disagreement?
My point of alignment was that the portal had been accessed from outside which
cannot be false otherwise we would not have been called.
My point of disagreement was when she accused me of sharing information to an
outside source which was false as I did no such thing. That triggered me to engage in a minor
verbal altercation with the HR on the matter as well
C. Reflect on how the conversation encouraged you to listen differently by
answering the following questions:
• How could you have listened differently moving up the conversation meter, and what effect
would that have had on the disagreement?
Moving up the conversation meter would entail researching the purpose. For that I
need to first understand what is of importance and value to the other party/ies. I can do that

4DESCRIBING CONVERSATION
by asking specific questions like “What is important to you in this situation?” or “what are
your primary concerns and purposes here?”
For instance, I can ask my HR “in this entire situation, what is your main concern or
purpose?” Alternately I can ask my colleague “between getting more work done and being
able to keep the job, what is more important to you?”
• How could you incorporate listening for needs, purpose, or concern to create value in the
conversation (including describing what that would look like)?
I can focus on the aspect of content, compassion and essential purpose while I am
asking questions to either the HR or my colleague regarding the incident. For instance, I
could ask my HR “So you mentioned about the login and logout activity statement from the
portal over the past two weeks. Is that something you need?” (content and essential purpose)
Alternately I could ask my colleague “So you admit that you wanted to get two jobs
done at once and so you shared our login details with your friend. Is that important to you?”
(Compassion).
• What have you learned about accuracy and authenticity that could be used to improve the
conversation?
I have learned that accuracy can separate the observable facts from their explanations.
So it can be used to highlight specific instances in the conversation rather than overlapping
multiple of them, to improve the conversation
I also learned that authenticity entails the genuine appreciation of views and factors
and can be used in the conversation to provide a logical exchange of thoughts, ideas and
opinions between the conversing parties.