Prevention and Management of Conflict

Discuss about the Nonnative Accents and Conflict Management.

Conflict management and resolution requires clarity of purpose and also clarity of the fact as to what is expected as an outcome (Rahim 2017). The outcomes can vary depending upon the conflict and the views of the individuals involved in the conflict (Caputo and Ayoko 2015). It is important for the individuals in the conflict to realize that their behavior or stance actually reflects what they believe in or want to establish, otherwise it may lead to the generation of unwanted and unforeseen outcomes (Ting-Toomey 2017). In this context it is important to mention that people sometimes avoid speaking up or initiating a conflict as they tend to believe that getting involved and engaged in the conflict will only cause them harm with no good outcome or resolution.

Often the stories of us depicted by us and the judgments we form internally about the same cause us to be disappointed and be negatively affected by the same (Helms and Oliver 2015). It is not the actions or the behavior of others that causes the initiation of the differences but the difference of the perspectives we form based on the stories of others involved in the conversation or the conflict (Ebner and Parlamis 2017). In this particular case, the conflict is effectively political in nature and there is use and involvement of vilification in this case (Hu et al. 2017). Vilification is the method in which another person is perceived to be the villain and his intentions are perceived malicious just because his opinions differ from the other person. In order to avoid the initiation of a conflict, the person initiating and perceiving judgments of the other person as a villain should humanize these thoughts and try to understand the perspective of that person (Scherrer 2017). Essentially conflicts arise because of the feeling of being threatened and being attacked. There are primarily only two ways of solving a conflict (Sager 2017). The conflict should either be prevented from arising or should be managed and solved.

Prevention of conflict can only be done by placing oneself in the shoes of the other and trying to understand if the cause will lead to mutual benefits (Stein 2017). If it only accrues benefit to oneself without catering to the interests of the other or the beliefs of the other person, the conflict will not be prevented from happening (Dyer and Song 2015). It is very important to treat the other person with respect in order to avoid a conflict which clearly does not happen in this case (Kim 2017). The conflict in this case is political in nature and involves the opinion of one person on bringing about a revolution in the field of politics and another person vilifying this person on grounds of not belonging to or being associated with politics in the first (Johns and McCosker 2015). Thus, the conflict is not prevented in any way in this case and this calls for effective management of the conflict (Dineva, Breitsohl and Garrod 2017). There are primarily two methods of managing conflicts. Either one can delve deeper into arguments or one can simply retreat into silence. In this case, it is clearly noticed that the conversation and the conflict is taken forward by the interviewer using unapologetic measures. The interviewer also does not use contrasting statements either to help resolve the conflict even though the interviewee tries to use some such statements.

Possible Measures of Resolution

The stories being told by the two people and hence the perspectives of these people about each other are very different, the very basis of initiation of the conflict (Einarsen et al. 2016). It is however observed in most instances in the person being interviewed that is Russell Brand tries to resolve or mitigate the conflict by reassuring the other person that he does not have to have the same views as him. However, Jeremy Paxman keeps forming a story about Russell Brand as a person who is trying to bring about a change and revolution in the political system by criticising it and going against it. The fact that he does not vote makes Jeremy think that Russell is not acquainted enough with the ongoing political scenario and so does not have a right to comment on the same or express his views regarding the same. While on the other hand, Russell feels that Jeremy has not been exposed to the socio-economic conditions that he was exposed to and so will not be able to foresee why a change is needed in the thought process encompassing politics as a whole. Jeremy thinks that the mentality with which Russell makes his points and justification of his views is neither realistic nor democratic in nature. The other stories that the two people involved in the conflict have built about each other include ways in which they perceive the problems that they have faced and survived. For example in this case, Russell claims to have developed drug problem because o the negligence of the political system while Jeremy asserts that this problem has no correlation with the political system of the country.

In this particular case, there are several instances where the interviewee feels threatened and claims that the other person does not have a right to burden others with his political view as he does not even take up the responsibility of voting and hence vilifies this person (Russell Brand).  The feeling of being threatened is also expressed by Russell when he tries explaining what a revolution would be like if it at all occurred. As the conversation surrounding the political interview continues, in some instances it is noted that Jeremy keeps grilling Russell in an attempt to only increase and not resolve the conflict through contrasting questions. However, these questions only cause the Russell to be even more perplexed and he becomes even more uncomfortable and also threatened.

Conclusion

The most effective way in which the two individuals should have resolved or at least tried to manage the conflict was by using the measures of speaking tentatively and the two people an d especially Jeremy should have respected and acknowledged each other’s point of view and made sure to understand that each of their opinions was only one way of perceiving the context and there could be other possibilities of interpreting or perceiving the same issue.

Both the people involved in the conflict should have considered practicing humility and tried not to become defensive (Jervis 2017). However as is observed in the end the conflict gets resolved with the help of compromising and collaborating the two conflicting ideas. As the conversation reaches the end, Jeremy understands the point of view with which Russell tries to perceive the problem persisting in the political system. Thus in this case, listening carefully and not using too defensive strategies were used for resolving this conflict.

The essence of this case lies in the fact that in this case, the conflict slowly gets converted into a discussion wherein Jeremy starts acknowledging the perspective and view of the Russell and also understanding the scale of the problem being discussed. Russell also keeps explaining how the problem being faced by the concerned people is not being solved and only being discussed. However, there is still scope for solving the problem or the conflict even further. A little more empathy should have been used as a measure of understanding the view points of each other. Also, there is no scope of intervention by a third party which might have been needed in this case especially with respect to the fact that there have been numerous instances where the people involved in the conversation have felt threatened. The safety restoration has occurred long after the initiation of the conflict and so the time for resolution has also been less.

Conclusion

In order to sum up or conclude the issue portrayed in this case, it is important to understand that this is a case of a political conflict wherein where the political views of the two people involved in the conversation or the conflict differ. There are various methods of preventing a conflict and also managing a conflict that has already been initiated. In this case there are various instances where the people involved have felt threatened and have also been vilified because of the lack of perception and acknowledgement of the views of the other person involved in the conflict. However, the method of compromising and acknowledging has ultimately been used in an attempt to resolve the conflict which has turned the conflict into a discussion that establishes lesser known facts.

References

Caputo, A. and Ayoko, O.B., 2015. Getting to a stranger’s smile: The role of cultural intelligence in negotiation and conflict management.

Dineva, D.P., Breitsohl, J.C. and Garrod, B., 2017. Corporate conflict management on social media brand fan pages. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(9-10), pp.679-698.

Dyer, B. and Song, X.M., 2015. The relationship between strategy and conflict management: A Japanese perspective. In Proceedings of the 1995 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference (pp. 126-132). Springer, Cham.

Ebner, N. and Parlamis, J., 2017. Weaving Together Theory, Research, Practice, and Teaching: A Four?dimensional Approach to Negotiation and Conflict Management Work. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 10(4), pp.245-251.

Einarsen, S., Skogstad, A., Rørvik, E., Lande, Å.B. and Nielsen, M.B., 2016. Climate for conflict management, exposure to workplace bullying and work engagement: a moderated mediation analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, pp.1-22.

Helms, W.S. and Oliver, C., 2015. Radical settlements to conflict: Conflict management and its implications for institutional change. Journal of Management & Organization, 21(4), pp.471-494.

Hu, S., He, Z.L., Blettner, D.P. and Bettis, R.A., 2017. Conflict inside and outside: Social comparisons and attention shifts in multidivisional firms. Strategic Management Journal, 38(7), pp.1435-1454.

Jervis, R., 2017. Nested security lessons in conflict management from the League of Nations and the European Union. Nationalities Papers, pp.1-3.

Johns, A. and McCosker, A., 2015. Social media conflict: Platforms for racial vilification, or acts of provocation and citizenship?. Communication, Politics & Culture, 47(3), p.44.

Kim, R., 2017. Nonnative Accents and Conflict Management: The Mediating Roles of Stereotype Threat, Regulatory Focus, and Conflict Behaviors on Conflict Outcomes.

Rahim, M.A., 2017. Managing conflict in organizations. Routledge.

Sager, T., 2017. Communicative Planning. In The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory (pp. 105-116). Routledge.

Scherrer, C.P., 2017. Ethnicity, nationalism and violence: Conflict management, human rights, and multilateral regimes. Routledge.

Stein, J.G., 2017. Political Psychology: Deterrence and Conflict. In Richard Ned Lebow: A Pioneer in International Relations Theory, History, Political Philosophy and Psychology(pp. 31-34). Springer, Cham.

Ting-Toomey, S., 2017. Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory. Conflict Management and Intercultural Communication: the Art of Intercultural Harmony–London, pp.123-143.