Personal Reflection On Interpersonal Interaction

Upon completing interview one and two, I surmise that interviewing is not as easy as it appears. Whether it be asking questions to a stranger, friend, or a family member, there are still levels of discomfort because my role changes. I am no longer their friend who can talk in a causal manner, I have to contemplate and decide what questions to ask and how to prevent boundary violations. With friends and family, I often do not perceive this and conversations are more lenient. It was difficult to provide reflection without sounding hypercritical or appearing apathetic. Sometimes, when I expect a client to remain attentive, they state information that may resonate or offend. So I found it hard to hinder personal perceptions and provide unconditional positive regard and accurate empathy. The process of empathy was challenging, knowing how to relate to a client’s situation when I have never encountered it was a fear I had to overcome. In society, majority of conversations with strangers are superficial and rarely delve into self-examination. I had to reframe my mindset and learn to be more attentive not just verbally, but non-verbally. Although difficult, these are attending behaviors I have incorporated with my interactions in society and it has helped me strengthen them. During interview one, the microskills I used were nonexistent, the only similarities I can detect with both interviews include good listening skills, eye contact, nodding my head, and providing minimal encouragers such as “ wow” and “ uh huh.” My conversations with the interviewee were not professional in interview one. I appeared more relaxed and I talked carelessly, almost as if I were talking to a friend. I had a laissez-faire approach, the topic entailed college experience and although I mimicked the interviewee’s body language and verbal behavior, such as laughing when she did, or showing excitement, I can easily see how boundaries may have been crossed. For instance, I provided too much self-disclosure when I spent a minute talking about myself. Also, showing restraint was quite difficult, subtractive empathy occurred when I laughed at the client’s story not realizing she was being serious. Moreover, my feedback in interview one was superficial and tended to ignore key concepts. Throughout interview two, I incorporated terms and practices learned from the text and the course which enhanced …show more content…
I wish I used less fillers and mazes and was more precise. Sometimes, I would use too much selective attention, for example I focused so much on the interviewee’s family relationships and reciprocal treatment, that I forgot to ask about her resentment for putting others first. I also could have questioned her coping skills regarding her family’s laxity. Whereas in interview one, I believe my strengths included providing great minimal encouragers, nodding my head, counselor congruence, and showing greater interest. Yet my weakness comprised integrating the microskills and staying focused and calm. During interview two, I feel that I focused so much on asking relevant questions that I appeared stoic during the client’s recollections. There were moments where I could have used simple to three word statements. I wish I could have interjected and interacted more and varied my diction. Also, I could have questioned the interviewee’s hopes and goals for the future, asking questions such as “What do you want to happen?” or “What could have occurred to make you feel better?” would have provided more elucidation about the interpersonal