What challenge inspired this recipe?
The “Barnga” activity is a great tool to work on intercultural misunderstandings in the European context: among Europeans, the intercultural misunderstandings is underestimated as we have a lot of things in common culturally speaking, and therefore the misunderstandings stemming out of interculturality are generally not recognized as such but as interpersonal conflict. The same happens in Barnga: everyone thinks they’re playing the same game, and the minor differences appearing during the game is firstly attributed to a misunderstanding of the rules, cheating… rather than the fact that the rules given were slightly different for each table.
However, the game can also be used in order to introduce another topic that might help the young people to get to know themselves better, and help them understand their own behavior when dealing with conflicts.
Ingredients :
– card games
– tables and chairs to have 4 to 6 players per table
– game rules sheet and a sheet of the 5 ace per table
Step by step guide
Once the game is over, the participants are usually a bit nervous and it might be good to let them calm down.
After the first usual questions in a debriefing (how did you feel, what do you think happened…) and make sure that everyone understood what happened, ask them to take a few seconds to think about their own reaction during the game, when it started to be obvious there was a problem. Did they decide to give up, to correct the other person, to withdraw, to find a solution? Let some of them share what they did. If you had observers or if you noticed something yourself during the game, you can ask or mention some of the reactions you or the observers noted down.
It leads to talk about the different positions you can adopt when faced with a conflict.
After they shared a bit, introduce them to the Thomas and Killmann (commented by Burke and Burrell) theory.
Here, the idea is to pay attention to the different behaviors in conflict, and AVOID to say that one behavior is better than the others, but rather that each of these behaviors are useful in certain situations.
Explain as well that each of us we have our “instinctual” behavior when facing a conflict, the one we naturally tend to adopt. Ask them to reflect on what they think are their main behaviors. The idea is for them to get to know better about themselves, so that they know better how they enter and deal with conflicts. Reflect on their behaviors help them to modify it in case they want to.
The Thomas and Killmann theory and the way to explain it:
There are two axis to this matrix :
Relationship: whether the relationship of the people involved in the conflict is important in this case or not
Goal: whether the goal behind this conflict is important in this case or not.
Shark – Competition
When the goal is more important than the relationship.
The person finds their goal as being more important than the relation. It’s a position of strength and authority when the person uses any means to achieve their goal.
Competing can be a valid behavior to adopt when defending their rights, defending a position considered as fair, when taking a decision is needed in a very short time.
Turtle – Avoidance
When neither the relationship, neither the goal is considered important
The opposite of competing. The person adopting this behaviour is not satisfying neither their own goal or the relationship. They avoid the conflict altogether.
Avoidance can be useful when the goal is simply not that important; when there is a real threat for the person, or to retreat until the time to discuss is more favorable
Teddy Bear – Accommodating
Accommodating shows a high level of importance for the relationship and a low importance of the goal. The person neglects their own aspirations to satisfy those of others.
In being conciliatory, a person neglects his or her own desires in order to satisfy those of another; there is an element of sacrifice in this attitude. To yield can mean to show generosity or disinterested charity, to obey an order that displeases, or to bow one’s head to someone else’s opinion.
Fox – Compromising
When the solution partially satisfies the goal, and partially preserves the relationship. It aims for a solution acceptable for both parties, though none is completely satisfied. This situation allows to neither avoid nor compete. This is a good solution to solve a problem in more direct ways than avoidance, but there will be a need to find for a more satisfying solution in a mid-term
Owl – Collaborating
Collaborating
When the behavior values both the goal and the relationship.
In order to achieve this, there is the need for a common work with the other party, the examination of the problem to find all the desires of both people and find a solution that satisfies them.
Important to highlight!Debriefing questions: • What do you think about this theory? |
Before you start cooking, keep in mind…
– Especially in an international group, participants could forget the rules or not understand them: make sure this is not the case.
– Make sure that the tables are far enough apart to avoid, in case of discussion during training, that the other participants hear these explanations and realize the difference in rules
– remember to leave enough time for the debriefing
