Using The Conflicts You Explored In Your Earlier Assignments ✓ Solved

Using the conflicts you explored in your earlier assignments

Using the conflicts you explored in your earlier assignments (interpersonal and institutional), create a conflict resolution plan. Research conflict negotiation strategies and conflict resolution styles (use at least three resources). Select a conflict resolution style to address the conflict, explain negotiation strategies you might have used, and determine whether the outcomes would have been different or the same. Include analysis of consistent themes in the conflicts, analysis of your behaviors in the conflicts, application of the selected conflict resolution style, and determination of whether outcomes would differ. Integrate appropriate scholarly sources and evidence.

Paper For Above Instructions

Overview

This plan uses two previously explored conflicts — an interpersonal dispute with a colleague over project credit and an institutional conflict concerning a department policy that limited telework — to develop an evidence-based conflict resolution plan. Drawing on negotiation and conflict-resolution literature (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011; Thomas & Kilmann, 1974; Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2016), this plan identifies consistent themes, analyzes personal behaviors, selects an appropriate conflict-resolution style, outlines specific negotiation strategies, and predicts whether outcomes would have differed under the proposed approach.

Consistent Themes Across Conflicts

Analysis of both the interpersonal and institutional conflicts reveals consistent themes: communication breakdown, unclear expectations, and power or status differentials. In the interpersonal case, assumptions about contribution and credit were never explicitly clarified, producing resentment and avoidance (Jehn, 1995). In the institutional case, policy changes were implemented with limited stakeholder input and sparse rationale, generating feelings of unfairness and procedural injustice (Wall & Callister, 1995). Both conflicts also demonstrated escalation because issues were allowed to fester rather than addressed early (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986).

Self-Analysis of Behavior

Reflecting on responses in both contexts, I observed patterns of initial avoidance and later reactive defensiveness. In the interpersonal conflict I tended to accommodate to preserve relationships but later expressed frustration indirectly, which increased tension (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). In the institutional conflict I initially complied with policy rather than seeking clarification or advocacy, signaling low assertiveness and a preference for short-term peace over long-term resolution. These behaviors align with the accommodation or avoidance modes described in classic conflict-mode frameworks, both of which can undermine problem solving when interests are not surfaced (Rahim, 2002).

Selected Conflict Resolution Style

Given the recurring themes and the need for durable, interest-based solutions, I select a collaborative (integrative) conflict resolution style for both cases (Fisher & Ury, 2011; Lewicki et al., 2016). Collaboration aims to address the underlying interests of all parties, generate multiple options, and produce mutually acceptable outcomes. This style is suitable when relationships matter and when complex, systemic issues (like institutional policies) require joint problem solving to create sustainable change (Tjosvold, 2008).

Negotiation Strategies to Use

Implementing collaboration requires concrete strategies:

  • Separate people from the problem: Frame discussions around interests and facts rather than personal blame (Fisher & Ury, 2011). In the interpersonal case, I would open by acknowledging the relationship and focusing on roles and contributions rather than accusing the colleague.
  • Interest-based inquiry: Use open questions to surface underlying needs (e.g., recognition, workload balance) instead of positional bargaining (Lewicki et al., 2016).
  • Develop multiple options: Brainstorm possible solutions before evaluating them, such as shared authorship agreements, clearer role descriptions, or joint presentations (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986).
  • Use objective criteria: Agree on transparent standards for credit, workload, or policy application to reduce perceptions of bias (Fisher & Ury, 2011).
  • Prepare BATNA and communicate it carefully: Know my best alternative to a negotiated agreement while avoiding threats that undermine collaboration (Lewicki et al., 2016).
  • Structured stakeholder involvement: For the institutional conflict, convene a representative working group, collect data on telework outcomes, and pilot policy adjustments to build buy-in (Mayer, 2009).
  • Mediation or neutral facilitation: Where power imbalances impede direct dialogue, involve an impartial facilitator to ensure voices are heard and power dynamics are managed (Deutsch, 1973).

These strategies are supported by empirical and practical literature on effective negotiation and organizational conflict management (Rahim, 2002; Wall & Callister, 1995).

Predicted Differences in Outcomes

Applying a collaborative, interest-based approach would likely have produced different and better outcomes in both conflicts. In the interpersonal dispute, early clarification of expectations and joint problem solving would likely have prevented resentment and led to an agreed attribution of credit or a process for future projects (Fisher & Ury, 2011). In the institutional case, stakeholder-engaged policy review could have mitigated perceptions of unfairness, produced more nuanced policy exceptions, and preserved trust (Tjosvold, 2008; Mayer, 2009).

Compared to earlier outcomes characterized by unresolved tension and lingering dissatisfaction, collaboration should increase procedural justice, enhance relationships, and yield more sustainable solutions (Jehn, 1995; Wall & Callister, 1995). However, collaborative approaches require time, willingness from other parties, and facilitation when power differences are large. If counterparts remain highly competitive or unwilling to negotiate, progress may be limited and additional steps (e.g., mediation, formal appeals) may be necessary (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986).

Implementation Plan and Measures of Success

Implementation steps include: (1) preparing a written agenda that separates interests from positions; (2) requesting a meeting with clear objectives; (3) using active listening and summarizing to confirm mutual understanding; (4) jointly developing options; and (5) documenting agreements with evaluation checkpoints. Success measures include reduced recurrence of the issue, restored or improved working relationship ratings, and specific policy adjustments or documented agreements that address identified interests (Rahim, 2002).

Conclusion

Consistent themes across interpersonal and institutional conflicts—communication failures, unclear expectations, and power differences—suggest that avoidance and accommodation behaviors contributed to suboptimal outcomes. Adopting a collaborative, interest-based conflict resolution style and applying targeted negotiation strategies (separating people from problems, interest-based inquiry, objective criteria, stakeholder engagement) would likely have altered outcomes favorably by producing fairer, more durable solutions and preserving relationships. While collaboration requires investment and may not succeed if parties refuse to engage, it offers the best pathway to address both relational and systemic dimensions of these conflicts (Fisher & Ury, 2011; Lewicki et al., 2016).

References

  • Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. Yale University Press.
  • Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin.
  • Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282.
  • Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2016). Negotiation (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Mayer, B. (2009). Beyond neutrality: Confronting the crisis in conflict resolution. Jossey-Bass.
  • Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. Random House.
  • Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206–235.
  • 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.
  • Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21(3), 515–558.

Related Assignments