Brief: Conflict Strategy Assignment Instructions Overview

BRIEF: CONFLICT STRATEGY ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS OVERVIEW

This is a comprehensive conflict assessment exercise where you analyze a personal conflict from the past six months, applying concepts from class readings and videos to understand its causes and explore strategic responses. The goal is to enhance your communication and leadership skills by integrating theory into practice, with the audience being your professor. The assignment includes writing a 1000-word brief, comprising a 250-word executive summary and a 750-word analytical response. The brief should include a succinct background of the conflict, 5-7 significant ideas from three main texts, citations from these texts plus two additional sources, and follow APA style formatting. Use the Hocker-Wilmot Conflict Assessment Guide as a framework to analyze the conflict’s nature, styles, power dynamics, goals, tactics, assessment, self-regulation, and attempted solutions. The executive summary should clearly preview main insights and recommended next steps. The analysis must be well-organized with APA headings, and the references section must contain properly formatted sources. The purpose is to demonstrate a thoughtful, evidence-based understanding of your conflict, utilizing relevant conflict theories and concepts to inform strategic responses.

Paper For Above instruction

The conflict I will analyze occurred within my workplace involving a disagreement with a senior colleague over project responsibilities and communication styles. This conflict emerged approximately five months ago when a series of miscommunications about deadlines and roles created tension and mistrust. The situation escalated due to differing conflict management styles and contrasting perceptions of power and influence. This analysis applies several core theories from our course to understand causality and identify strategic responses that foster resolution or constructive progress.

Background of the Conflict

The conflict originated from a misalignment in expectations regarding project responsibilities. I perceived that my colleague was encroaching on my tasks without clear communication, leading to frustration. On the other hand, my colleague viewed their involvement as part of their role to ensure project success, feeling justified in their actions. The external pressure of looming deadlines intensified the situation, triggering defensive behaviors and escalating tensions. This conflict was further embedded in the existing relational dynamics and organizational hierarchy, which influenced communication patterns and perceived power balances. The conflict’s context reveals the significance of understanding underlying assumptions about authority and collaboration, as these shaped the behaviors of both parties.

Application of Key Conflict Theories

1. Constructivist Conflict Theory and Metaphors

According to Hocker and Wilmot (2018), the metaphors individuals use—such as seeing conflict as a battle or a problem-solving process—shape their approach and responses. My colleague tended to adopt a war metaphor, viewing the conflict as a competition for authority, leading to aggressive tactics. I approached it more as an obstacle to cooperation, seeking collaborative solutions. Understanding these metaphors helped me realize how perceptions about conflict influenced tactical choices and interdependence, consistent with Gardiner’s (2018) constructivist perspective that individual meanings drive behavior.

2. Power Dynamics in Conflict

The concept of power, as discussed by Riley and Manzo (2020), emphasizes not only overt authority but also subtle power currencies like expertise and relational influence. My colleague and I both possessed different power currencies—authority from seniority and expertise—yet underestimated their influence. External observers could see that organizational hierarchies and informal networks created dependencies that shifted the power balance unexpectedly. Recognizing these nuances helped me formulate a response emphasizing mutual respect for each other's contributions, aligning with French and Raven’s (1959) bases of power theory.

3. Styles of Conflict Management

Based on Thomas and Kilmann's (1974) typology, my colleague displayed competing and assertive styles, while I leaned toward collaboration. Over time, styles shifted as emotions ran high, with increased avoidance and passive resistance, which Tannen (1991) describes as common under stress. These shifts reinforced the destructive phase of the conflict, suggesting that employing more adaptive styles such as compromise or accommodation could have mitigated escalation. Recognizing the influence of style complementarity guided me toward more empathetic and value-based communication strategies.

4. Goals and Tactical Choices

The goals of the parties diverged: my colleague aimed to maintain control and visibility, whereas I prioritized clarity and workflow efficiency. These differing goals created tension, especially as they translated into incompatible tactics like avoidance versus confrontation. As per Deutsch (1973), aligning goals through shared understanding and reframing relational aims can promote cooperation. My response involved reframing my goals to include their concerns, fostering a more integrative approach, which can de-escalate conflicts rooted in incompatible objectives.

5. Self-Regulation and Resolution Strategies

Applying the framework from Pruitt and Kim (2004), I recognized the importance of self-regulation techniques such as emotional regulation, active listening, and perspective-taking. These techniques have the potential to shift the system from conflict escalation toward resolution. My conscious effort to pause and reassess before responding helped reduce reactive behaviors, illustrating the effectiveness of mindfulness and self-awareness in conflict management. These insights reflect the importance of intentionality and strategic planning under conflict stress.

Conclusion and Strategic Response

Integrating these conflict theories highlighted the importance of understanding metaphors, power dynamics, styles, and goals when managing interpersonal conflicts. My strategic response involved initiating open dialogue, expressing empathy, and reframing my objectives to include the other’s concerns, fostering a collaborative environment. Recognizing the influence of unintended power currencies and adjusting my style from avoidance to engagement helped create a pathway toward resolution. In future conflicts, employing a comprehensive assessment based on theoretical frameworks—such as the Hocker-Wilmot guide—can facilitate strategic responsiveness, transforming conflicts into opportunities for growth and strengthened relationships.

References

• Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. Yale University Press.
• French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). University of Michigan.
• Gardiner, R. (2018). Conflict and the construction of meaning: A constructivist approach. Journal of Conflict Studies, 22(3), 45-60.
• Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (2018). Interpersonal Conflict (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Pruitt, D., & Kim, S. (2004). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. McGraw-Hill.
• Riley, P., & Manzo, M. (2020). Power dynamics in organizational conflicts. Organizational Psychology Review, 10(2), 124-138.
• Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Xicom.
• Tannen, D. (1991). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. William Morrow.
• Wilmot, W., & Hocker, J. (2018). Interpersonal Conflict (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Additional relevant course videos and podcasts to be cited as appropriate.