Conflict Management Evaluation

This document analyzes the conflict management and negotiation strategies used in a debate on the topic 'Does Islam promote violence?' between Bill Maher and Reza Aslan on CNN channel.

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT EVALUATION
1

Introduction
Conflict takes place when individuals differ in their beliefs, ideas or theories (Van der Vliert,
2013). Conflict and negotiation are amicable solutions when parties are involved in a conflict. In
the current video uploaded, the topic of conflict is ‘Does Islam promote violence?' CNN channel
aired this interview with the point of view of Bill Maher and Reza Aslan. The anchors Camerota
and Lemon were conducting the interview procedure taking into consideration all amicable
views from Reza Aslan. While Maher tried to ignite a conflict, Reza Aslan tried to provide
instances and facts to arrive at a negotiating point of view (Jackson, 2010). Debating a topic of
religion is bound to be a conflict procedure, with each party having their point of view. In this
debate, suitably Reza Aslan, a Muslim and religious scholar was selected and the other parties to
the debate were Christians. This group creates an appropriate mix of individuals were intentions
of each participant is clear. Once the topic of conflict is established, in order to negotiate a
solution bargaining strategies has to be implemented (Ting‐Toomey, 2017, p. 1-6). The current
discussion analyses ways each participant could have managed themselves and conducted the
interview in a more effective manner.
Analysis
The interview procedure on the topic initiated with Camerota and Lemon introducing viewers the
participants to the discussion and expressing for and against views to the topic (Lewicki, Barry,
Saunders, and Tasa, 2011). The discussion was initiated by a rather strong notion introduced by
Maher stating point of view regarding Islam. The entire discussion had four participants with
three participants sharing the same point of view with only one participant Reza Aslan having a
contradictory point of view. Bill Maher's opinion can be considered to be the rather harsh and
non-sophisticated expressing point of view regarding Muslim countries (Autesserre, 2014). Bill
Maher is a comedian but when he expressed his opinion regarding Muslim, he extended his
personal of the allegation against Muslims in the entire world. His participation in the interview
can be regarded as one to create a conflict. He clearly expressed his negative opinion even
including President Obama’s point of view. His views on the TV show threatened viewers. He
was imposing his views rather than discussing the pros and cons of it (Wallensteen, 2018). He
2

seemed to be rather unprepared for the interview with Aslan. As Aslan is a religious scholar and
Muslim himself, he knew provided various points against the arguments provided by Maher.
Maher was almost out of words for replying back to Aslan.
The anchors, Camerota and Lemon then changed the discussion focus to get point of view from
Reza Aslan. Reza Aslan is a professor of religion expressed his views against the topic debated.
The anchor's purpose since the beginning of the interview was to establish that Islam as a
religion does promote violence as they had various supportive facts such as the ISIS, female
genital mutilation, women's rights and so on (De Dreu, 2010). At every instance Reza Aslan
replied to a comment made by the anchors, they tried to reinstate and provide a new perspective
against Islamic practices. Negotiation is necessary to arrive at an amicable solution but neither
anchors were trying to negotiate a solution. The discussion to the topic is a rather ‘hot' topic due
to the various worldwide instances of rising Militant Islamic attacks. However, the anchors
provided no solution to the problem or no relief for Reza Aslan (Buchbinder, 2011, p. 106-122).
The anchors were rather accommodative in their outlook on Islam and the point of view they
held, they were ready to accept Reza’s point of view. The discussion or the anchors could have
progressed in with better bargaining in case each of the anchors discussed their position on the
topic rather than extending other’s opinion on the same. Their point of view was contradicted
Reza Aslan, who was trying to establish his point of view from point of view of a religious
scholar. Aslan seemed more prepared for the interview as compared to the anchors, putting them
at a disadvantageous position.
The anchors suggest various points of view from practical instances to make Reza Aslan agree
and not rebuke their point of view (Creed, DeJordy and Lok, 2010, p. 1336-1364). They offered
various instances from real-world scenarios where Muslim countries are only faced with
challenges. The point of view of the anchors is rather clear as they offer a number of points on
which the negotiation could proceed, however, Reza being a scholar of religion offered fresh
viewpoint at every instance (Fiol, Pratt and O'Connor, 2009, p. 32-55). Though at times, the
anchor's point of view appeared to be aggressive, they offered with every discussion of fresh
opportunities for negotiations. However, each of the anchors when debating the issue with Aslan
appeared to be rather particular and assertive. They needed Reza to agree to a minimum one
point of view amongst the multiple points suggested by them on the topic (De Wit, Greer, and
3

Jehn, 2012, p. 360). They possessed calm behavior with a potential opposition and they intended
to bring Reza to agree to their point of view. When proposing various facts and data regarding
the topic, the anchors were suggesting facts that were prominent worldwide rather than solely
expressing the opinion of others. However, the issue was such that there was no opportunity for
accommodating or comprising could arise (Tekleab, Quigley and Tesluk, 2009, p. 170-205).
Though the anchors did prepare for the interview and knew various factors that they were to talk
about, they seemed to be changing topic after topic. They did not possess as much detailed
knowledge as Aslan to bargain regarding one particular topic. Due to which they kept
introducing one topic after another and two interviews (Deutsch, 2011, p. 95-118). They should
have known that they will be confronted with a religious scholar with a decade of learning, hence
they could have been better prepared. As the topic concerned evaluating Muslim with violence,
they should have gained knowledge and in-depth understanding of the different violent activities
globally and provide an exact percentage of such violence caused by Muslim (Keashly et al.,
2011, p. 423-445).
The process of negotiating can proceed either by way of distributive bargaining or integrative
bargaining. Analysis of the transcript it can be said that the anchors and Aslan wanted
distributive bargaining such that each party to the conflict achieves a winning position. Hence,
the anchors had created a range of outcomes and preparations to provide points of view
regarding the topic. All the points were relevant instances from what was happening currently in
the world (Mahmood, 2009, p. 193-215). Evaluating the interview of Aslan, it can be said that he
is a well-learned man who had come prepared with loads of data and information. Moreover, his
decade of scholarly practice provided him with the knowledge regarding Muslim religious
happening around the world. While negotiating each time to reply on each particular issue he
seemed well connected between one point to another, rather than simply stating facts. His
negotiating powers are immensely positive due to his behavioral skills (Hamperl and Cimprich,
2016, p. 1455-1467). He had been assertive in each point he was given to conflict at. He
reflected tremendous efforts and reflected each aspect with appropriate facts making his point of
view clear every time. Due to his assertion, he has almost won the topic of the debate, making
clear to the other participant his point of view (Hipel and Walker, 2011, p. 279-293). He made
the anchors agree to the point he was trying to put forward however with his consistently calm
behavior.
4

Conclusion
In the case of debates, conflict is bound to arise. An appropriate panel for discussing a topic
allows exploring the ideology with in-depth and detailed knowledge. The above conflict and
negotiation reveal that not having appropriate background or detailed insight to a topic can be
disadvantageous especially when debating. While one of the parties to the conversation
possesses immense knowledge, others lacked knowledge which could allow them to explore the
issue in depth. Each party's motive was at one time to cause a conflict then it was managing
conflict, Aslan tried to express mostly his own opinion, whereas the other participants often
included opinion from others. The reliance on facts by Aslan proved his winning in the conflict
situation where he was comfortably able to express his views. The success of the Aslan was
totally dependent
5

References
Autesserre, S., 2014. Peaceland: Conflict resolution and the everyday politics of international
intervention. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from <https://books.google.co.in/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=WRtvAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=conflict+resolution&ots=0tH6Y5uaj
5&sig=r-8rfuRr_v8o7M9PZp00ZyEfZSQ#v=onepage&q=conflict%20resolution&f=false>
Buchbinder, E., 2011. Beyond checking: Experiences of the validation interview. Qualitative
Social Work, 10(1), pp.106-122. Retrieved from
<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1473325010370189>
Creed, W.D., DeJordy, R. and Lok, J., 2010. Being the change: Resolving institutional
contradiction through identity work. Academy of management journal, 53(6), pp.1336-1364.
Retrieved from <https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMJ.2010.57318357>
De Dreu, C.K., 2010. Social conflict: The emergence and consequences of struggle and
negotiation. Handbook of social psychology. Retrieved from
<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002027>
De Wit, F.R., Greer, L.L. and Jehn, K.A., 2012. The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), p.360. Retrieved from
<http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2011-17690-001.html>
Deutsch, M., 2011. Justice and conflict. In Conflict, interdependence, and justice (pp. 95-118).
Springer, New York, NY. Retrieved from <https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-
4419-9994-8_5>
6

Fiol, C.M., Pratt, M.G. and O'Connor, E.J., 2009. Managing intractable identity
conflicts. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), pp.32-55. Retrieved from
<https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amr.2009.35713276>
Hamperl, S. and Cimprich, K.A., 2016. Conflict resolution in the genome: how transcription and
replication make it work. Cell, 167(6), pp.1455-1467. Retrieved from
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867416313381>
Hipel, K.W. and Walker, S.B., 2011. Conflict analysis in environmental
management. Environmetrics, 22(3), pp.279-293. Retrieved from
<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/env.1048>
Jackson, L., 2010. Images of Islam in US media and their educational implications. Retrieved
from <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00131940903480217?
journalCode=heds20>
Keashly, L., Nowell, B.L., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C., 2011. Conflict,
conflict resolution, and bullying. Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in
theory, research, and practice, 2, pp.423-445. Retrieved from
<https://books.google.co.in/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=h8qYxAhmhUAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA423&dq=resolving+conflict+through+discus
sion&ots=P3CCCD1kvr&sig=FU-AM36Fk8pzJSKRJpsZf8GMG7A#v=onepage&q=resolving
%20conflict%20through%20discussion&f=false>
Lewicki, R.J., Barry, B., Saunders, D.M. and Tasa, K., 2011. Essentials of negotiation. Boston,
MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Retrieved from <http://bestbookdan.com/essentials-of-negotiation-roy-
j-lewicki-original-book-read-online.pdf>
7

Mahmood, S., 2009. Feminism, democracy, and empire: Islam and the war on terror.
In Gendering Religion and Politics (pp. 193-215). Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Retrieved
from <https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230623378_9>
Tekleab, A.G., Quigley, N.R. and Tesluk, P.E., 2009. A longitudinal study of team conflict,
conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization
Management, 34(2), pp.170-205. Retrieved from
<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1059601108331218>
Ting‐Toomey, S., 2017. Identity negotiation theory. The International Encyclopedia of
Intercultural Communication, pp.1-6. Retrieved from
<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0039>
Van der Vliert, E., 2013. Complex interpersonal conflict behaviour: Theoretical frontiers.
Psychology Press. Retrieved from <https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781134839582>
Wallensteen, P., 2018. Understanding conflict resolution. SAGE Publications Limited. Retrieved
from <https://books.google.co.in/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=mqR5DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=conflict+resolution&ots=RkXPpLr8
Wl&sig=_hehE0J6Zbgru1QN1RHPm7hkpAk>
8