Need A 5-7 Page Paper On A Conflict That He Or She E ✓ Solved

Need a 5-7 page paper on a conflict that he or she e

Need a 5-7 page paper on a conflict that he or she experienced in an organizational setting. The organizational analysis will contain the following sections: Background and history that led to the conflict. How/why did the conflict escalate? How was the conflict resolved? What would the student have done differently, based on what he or she has learned in the class?

Paper For Above Instructions

Executive Summary

This paper analyzes a real workplace conflict I experienced while leading a cross-functional project team in a mid-sized technology firm. The analysis follows four sections requested in the assignment: background and history, escalation dynamics, resolution process, and reflective lessons with alternative actions grounded in conflict management theory. The goal is to extract practical lessons and link them to scholarly frameworks so organizational practitioners can prevent and resolve similar conflicts.

Background and History Leading to the Conflict

Context: I was the project lead for a product launch requiring coordination between engineering, marketing, and customer support. The team included senior engineers, a marketing manager, and a support lead. The organization had recently shifted to agile timelines, increasing cross-team dependencies and perceived urgency.

Root causes: Several structural and interpersonal factors set the stage for conflict. First, ambiguous role boundaries and overlapping responsibilities between engineering and marketing produced confusion about decision authority (Rahim, 2001). Second, resource constraints created competition for developer time. Third, a history of limited cross-functional meetings produced information gaps and distrust (Jehn, 1995).

Triggering incident: Conflict coalesced around a deadline change initiated by marketing to meet a trade-show schedule. Engineering believed the new scope was infeasible in the timeframe. A heated email exchange between the marketing manager and the lead engineer accused each other of unprofessionalism, which quickly drew in the broader team and senior managers.

How and Why the Conflict Escalated

Communication breakdowns: The conflict escalated when parties moved from task-oriented disagreement to negative personal attributions. The absence of a structured negotiation process allowed emotion and rumor to substitute for facts (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2015).

Conflict styles and perceptions: The Thomas-Kilmann framework explains behaviors observed: engineering adopted an avoiding/competing mix—withdrawing from compromise but fiercely defending technical standards—while marketing used an assertive, competing style to achieve external deadlines (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). These mismatched styles worsened antagonism.

Social identity and team faultlines: Members began aligning with their functional groups (engineering vs. marketing), increasing intergroup bias and reducing willingness to entertain integrative solutions (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001). The conflict moved from task conflict (scope and schedule) to relationship conflict, which is more damaging and harder to resolve (Jehn, 1997).

How the Conflict Was Resolved

Intervention initiation: Senior management mandated a facilitated meeting with an internal mediator from HR. The facilitator used structured ground rules: no interrupting, focus on interests rather than positions, and evidence-based statements of constraints.

Process used: The mediation combined elements of principled negotiation and interest-based problem solving (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1991). Parties were encouraged to identify underlying interests: engineering’s interest in code quality and maintainability; marketing’s interest in meeting external deadlines for revenue and visibility.

Outcome: The group agreed on a phased delivery plan: a minimum viable feature set for the trade show with clearly defined quality acceptance criteria, followed by a prioritized backlog for subsequent sprints. Resource reallocation was negotiated (temporary engineering support), and a communication charter was established for future scope changes. The written agreement included escalation pathways and a weekly cross-functional sync to reduce information asymmetry.

Effectiveness: The resolution was moderately successful. The immediate deadline was met and tensions reduced. However, residual mistrust lingered because the initial email exchange had not been explicitly addressed through apologies or restorative dialogue (Mayer, 2008).

What I Would Have Done Differently Based on Course Learnings

Proactive structural interventions: Based on lessons from organizational conflict literature, I would have implemented preventive practices before escalation: clarified roles and decision rights in a RACI (Responsible-Accountable-Consulted-Informed) matrix and established a formal change-control process for scope adjustments to limit ambiguity (Rahim, 2001).

Early intervention and framing: I would have intervened earlier to reframe the disagreement as a shared problem to be solved, using interest-based questions (e.g., “What is the minimum that would satisfy your core need?”) to shift focus from positions to interests (Fisher et al., 1991).

Use of neutral facilitation and structured communication: Rather than allowing email to carry the dispute, I would have requested an immediate facilitated conversation (face-to-face or synchronous virtual meeting) to prevent escalation into relationship conflict. Establishing communication norms—such as avoiding accusatory language in written exchanges and committing to clarify intent—would reduce misattribution (Lewicki et al., 2015).

Training and team development: I would recommend conflict competence training for cross-functional teams, including active listening, perspective-taking exercises, and the Thomas-Kilmann instrument to increase self-awareness of conflict styles (Tjosvold, 2008). Regular joint planning sessions and shared metrics also help reduce intergroup competition (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001).

Restorative practices: To rebuild trust after the dispute, I would facilitate a restorative dialogue where parties express the impact of actions and offer acknowledgments or apologies, which research shows helps repair relationships and prevents recurrence (Mayer, 2008).

Conclusion

The conflict I experienced was rooted in structural ambiguity, competing priorities, and communication failures. Escalation followed predictable patterns described in conflict management literature—mismatch of conflict styles, movement from task to relationship conflict, and intergroup alignment. Resolution via facilitated interest-based negotiation achieved practical outcomes but left relationships partially healed. Applying preventive structural measures, earlier neutral facilitation, communication norms, and restorative practices would have led to a more durable resolution. The case underscores that effective conflict management requires both procedural systems and interpersonal skills.

References

• De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309–328.
• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.
• Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282.
• Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 530–557.
• Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2015). Negotiation (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Mayer, B. (2008). Beyond neutrality: Confronting the crisis in conflict resolution. Jossey-Bass.
• Rahim, M. A. (2001). Managing Conflict in Organizations (3rd ed.). Quorum Books.
• Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Xicom.
• Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 19–28.
• Ury, W. (1993). Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People. Bantam Books.