Introduction
Conflict is inevitable in any environment. It is a word that can form friction, disagreement, or discord resulting from a group or individual when the others do not accept their beliefs, ideas, or actions. Conflicts are diverse. Workplace conflicts, family conflicts, peer conflicts, business partners, and other disagreements exist. Despite the existence of conflicts in society, they can be avoided only if the parties embrace proper approaches during discussion or negotiations. For instance, in organizational settings, conflicts arise when the manager fails to communicate exact information on what an employee should do on a certain task. The two will engage in conflicts, which would have been prevented only if the manager had used proper communication to ensure the exact information reaches the targeted employee. In general, conflicts are part of contemporary society. However, how people handle their issues predetermines the occurrence of the conflict.
Techniques for managing Conflicts
Conflict management is one of the hardest tasks in the organization or any other setting. This is because the process requires determinations as well as the participation of two parties involved in the disagreement. There are various techniques employed to ensure conflict is resolved amicably. The following few are discussed below.
One of the best techniques to manage conflict is listening actively and responsibly. Communication is vital in any argument. In a debate, communicating amicably while tabling facts will ensure the other party comprehends the information before reacting to them. Listening before arguing is one of the greatest virtues individuals could do to promote an effective and fruitful discussion. Regarding the debate, using ethics and reacting to issues when the other person pauses or finishes the statement would help the discussion go the right way. Being clear on the topic discussed would ensure the other party responds to them without using harsh words that would otherwise distort the entire argument.
The other technique of managing conflict is acknowledging and integrating emotions to solve the indifferences. This technique works mutually with the aforementioned approach. Upon listening to the other party’s argument, it is important to appreciate the information given to help respond to the points highlighted positively. In many cases, debaters have used emotions to counterattack a statement instead of firstly acknowledging major points before responding. The use of this approach will neutralize the harsh response from the other party. For example, in a discussion, the moderator must warn the debaters about using vulgar or abusive statements that will otherwise affect the flow of the discussion. When one of the members chooses to attack the other party, it is advised that the second party would use a better approach to ensure the discussion is healthy throughout.
Resistance exploration, meditation, and designing systems to prevent conflicts are other approaches to tame disagreements in discussions. Though it is regarded as a rigid technique to manage conflicts, proponents claim that it helps solve the disagreement, especially if more than one person is discussing it. The technique leader of the discussion reinvents a resistances approach immediately after they detect resistance in the discussion. The resistance will dismiss fear of those involved allowing them to air their issues freely. For instance, if one member feels undermined, resistance will work best and protect them from the process. Like other conflict management techniques, communication is paramount in the entire process of solving the problem.
Background
Ari Melber
Ari Melber is a renowned American attorney and successful host journalist. Born in 1980 and raised in Washington by Jewish-based parents, he became one of the prominent features in television. After graduating high school, he earned a BA degree in political science at the University of Michigan. Before fully venturing into a journalist, he worked as an intern at a New York lawyer’s office for a long period. He later joined MSNBC as a news journalist in 2016. The following year he began hosting shows dubbed ‘The Beat with Ari Melber’. The show has gained major honors and followers that do not miss Ari’s insight interviews. Besides being the host of this show, Ari is one of the respected columnists in The Atlantic and the ‘New York Daily news.’ Additionally, he has been recognized occasionally and called to moderate and speak in universities such as Oxford, Yale, and The New York University, among others. Besides inviting political speakers, he reaches out to speakers, actors, and musicians on the verge of balancing viewers’ interests.
Peter Navarro
Peter Navarro was born in 1949 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Navarro graduated in the late 1970s from Tuff University before enrolling for Ph.D. in economics at Harvard University. For the last 20 years, he has been a professor of economics and public policy at the Paul Merage School of business and the University of Californian in Irvine. Peter Navarro’s status rose when former president Trump appointed him to head the national trade council. According to Trump’s confidants, Navarro was picked because of his stand on the trade and controversies targeting the Chinese trade system. Trump saw an opportunity to appoint him to help in counterattacking china’s imminent growth in trade and other activities related to trade.
Navarro was among the white house dignitaries to warn of the coronavirus’s adverse effects before being declared a global pandemic. In a memo quoted in the New York Times, Navarro warned that the COVID-19 was likely to cause adverse effects if it went out of china. He was quoted claiming that a lack of immune system or protection or any drugs would leave most Americans defenseless in case of a full invasion of the pandemic to the United States soil. Besides being a full-time professor and advisor on matters of trade and public policy, he is an author. He has authored dozens of books and published peer-reviewed articles on topics such as trade, energy policy, charity, and deregulation.
Ari Melber interviews Peter Navarro on MSNBC on his show The Beat with Ari Melber’. The audience the key speakers were addressing were political, economists, and Trump supporters.
Analysis
The debate between Ari and Navarro was the best. Both speakers maintain their respect while professionally articulating their issues. Being a journalist, Ari employed sophisticated techniques to ensure Navarro attended to all the questions targeted at him. On the other hand, Navarro, with the help of his educational background and literary skills, almost answered all questions and ensured the emotions were controlled since he was live on a national television program.
Ari Melber was most effective in getting the core information in an interview. When Peter Navarro began to beat around the bush, he responded ‘False,’ signifying that Navarro was lying. He insisted that Peter expound on what happened immediately after the current President, Joe Bidden, edged Trump. In the long, Peter Navarro gave in and expounded the exact information making the speaker, Ari, respond with ‘Right.’
Some of the stories that speakers were inventing about their adversaries include the speaker questioning the host’s credibility. For example, when asked about some of the rules of the discussion set by Ari, Navarro responded that he was aware of that. While Peter Navarro was the guest on the Ari show, he turned out to be interviewed, questioning his credibility and skills of Ari. Additionally, when asked about being part of the cup that was trying to overthrow the president, he was emotional and even threatened the moderator, Ari. After the incident and mentioning Steve Bannon going to jail for the planned coup, he would respond with one word ‘Sure.’ This signified that he was emotional, and the only way to let it go was by nodding.
There were various points where parties in debate felt threatened. When Ari raised the issue that Navarro was likely to go to jail alongside Steve Bannon, he cooled down and could not respond to any question raised. Throughout the debate, Navarro had maintained that the process was legal and they were following the constitution on procedures of overthrowing the US presidential election results. However, Ari’s harsh words made Navarro feel threatened.
At 07:31, the discussion was emotional. While Ari was trying to ensure Navarro answered the question accordingly, Navarro seemed to get emotional since no one wanted to be associated with the coup. On the ground, Navarro was trying to detach itself from the said coup that already had claimed one of his close friends working for Trump, Bannon.
In order to diffuse tension and return to the initial discussion, Navarro could have clarified his thoughts about the situation. Besides the feeling, clarifying would have helped him return to the discussion and ensure he attended to the remaining questions. Nodding and remaining hostile would not be received well by the supporters who expected him to defend them on a national platform. Additionally, having seen Navarro become emotional, Ari would have framed the discussion to allow Navarro to respond to the same allegation but on another approach. This would offer an opportunity for him to air his stand on the coup and expound on matters of the presidential elections. As a result of emotion, it was clear that Navarro did not exhaust all the information, and thus, the discussion could not meet its target.
Conclusion
In conclusion, conflict is a common phenomenon expired in daily life. However, some conflicts happen without expectations, presence of a plan to ease disagreements works best. In the discussion, Ari and Navarro are professionals in varied fields. Besides being aware of the followers and confidence behind them, they ensured the discussion went ahead as planned. At some point, Ari seems to have hit hard on Navarro, prompting him to use short phrases in the discussion. However, for continuity and disappointment, he chooses to be part of the discussion.
Additionally, Ari used skills and techniques such as nullifying the allegation stated by Navarro in order to bring him to the discussion. In the long run, he ensured Navarro disclosed the exact information. As a result, parties need to have knowledge of the discussion and know what to do in case one of the parties becomes emotional. Ari failed to notice that Navarro had become emotional in the middle of the discussion. Changing the approach to the question would have ensured Navarro disclosed the required information. In line with this, Ari could have used descent words and avoided threatening Navarro to ensure the discussion sired fruits.
References List
Navarro, P. and Pillsbury, M., 2018. White House National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro on Chinese Economic Aggression. Hudson Institute.
Kerr, W.A., 2019. China, the United States and the rules of trade. Estey Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 20(1753-2019-2985), pp.1-14.
Phyllis L., 2017. Who is Peter Navarro? Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/012717/peter-navarro.asp
write