Write A 5-7 Page Paper On A Conflict You Experience ✓ Solved

Write a 5-7 page paper on a conflict you experienc

Write a 5-7 page paper on a conflict you experienced in an organizational setting. The organizational analysis must include: Background and history that led to the conflict; How and why the conflict escalated; How the conflict was resolved; What you would have done differently based on what you learned in the class. No plagiarism.

Paper For Above Instructions

Executive Summary

This paper analyzes a workplace conflict I experienced while working on a cross-functional project team at a mid-sized nonprofit. The analysis covers background and history, the escalation dynamics, resolution steps taken, and a reflective plan outlining what I would do differently in light of conflict management theories and class learning.

Background and History Leading to the Conflict

The team was charged with launching a citywide volunteer recruitment campaign. Membership included marketing, operations, and program staff. I served as the operations lead coordinating logistics; another colleague (hereafter “Alex”) led outreach. Early in the project, roles and responsibilities were not clearly articulated, creating overlap: both Alex and I assumed primary responsibility for volunteer training materials. The ambiguity coincided with tight deadlines, limited budget, and differing assumptions about acceptable risk and quality. Organizationally, there was no RACI or documented decision authority, which left role clarity to informal norms (Robbins & Judge, 2019).

How and Why the Conflict Escalated

The conflict began as technical disagreements over content and delivery approach but escalated into personal friction. Three primary mechanisms explain the escalation.

1. Role ambiguity and task interdependence: Lack of clear responsibilities increased task interdependence, causing duplicated work and uncoordinated changes. Research shows ambiguity and interdependence heighten conflict likelihood (Jehn, 1997; Barki & Hartwick, 2004).

2. Poor communication and attribution errors: Alex perceived my changes to the training draft as undermining his vision and became defensive; I interpreted his delayed feedback as avoidance. Attribution errors and negative perceptions intensified emotions, a common driver of destructive conflict (Deutsch, 1973).

3. Conflict-handling styles and power struggles: My default was collaborative problem solving, while Alex initially adopted a competitive stance, asserting authorship. The mismatch of Thomas-Kilmann styles (competing vs. collaborating) converts task disagreements into interpersonal conflict (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974).

These dynamics created a cycle: reactive messages led to curt email exchanges and silent withholding of information, which delayed work and reduced trust. Team morale suffered and deadlines were at risk—a pattern consistent with destructive conflict documented in organizational literature (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986).

How the Conflict Was Resolved

Resolution occurred after the project supervisor intervened. The supervisor convened a structured mediation meeting focused on interests rather than positions, following principles of interest-based negotiation (Fisher & Ury, 1981). Steps taken included:

• Establishing meeting norms (no interruptions, focus on problems not people).
• Separating positions from interests: both parties listed underlying goals (quality, timeline, volunteer experience).
• Identifying objective criteria for content and delivery (audience needs, training duration limits, available budget).
• Agreeing on a revised task allocation and a simple RACI chart for remaining work.
• Setting short check-in points and a shared document repository to reduce information asymmetry.

The mediator encouraged mutual recognition of constraints, which reduced emotional reactivity. By converting positional demands into shared goals, the team negotiated trade-offs—Alex retained final say on messaging while I led operational sequencing and logistics. The agreement included follow-up meetings to monitor progress. This approach mirrors effective conflict resolution practices that emphasize structured processes and third-party facilitation (Mayer, 2000; Rahim, 2002).

Outcomes and Learning

The immediate outcome was functional: the campaign launched with minor delays and acceptable outcomes. More importantly, the conflict resolution created durable process changes: clearer role definitions on subsequent projects, mandatory shared repositories, and brief stand-ups to surface issues early. The intervention converted a destructive spiral into an opportunity for process improvement—demonstrating the “conflict-positive” potential when managed constructively (Tjosvold, 1991).

What I Would Do Differently Based on Class Learning

Reflecting on class material, I identify four actions I would take differently to prevent escalation and achieve earlier resolution:

1. Establish clear roles and decision authority at project outset: Implement a RACI matrix and shared deliverable schedule to remove ambiguity and align expectations (Robbins & Judge, 2019).

2. Use early, structured communication routines: Short daily or bi-weekly check-ins and a shared platform for drafts would mitigate information asymmetry and reduce negative attributions (Jehn, 1997).

3. Apply interest-based negotiation at the first sign of disagreement: Rather than reacting to positions, I would immediately reframing the issue to underlying interests and invite joint problem solving, as advised by Fisher and Ury (1981).

4. Attend to emotions and relationship repair: I would name and manage emotions early—using active listening and validation techniques to de-escalate affective conflict (Deutsch, 1973; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). If needed, request early neutral facilitation instead of allowing positions to calcify.

These measures align with integrative conflict management frameworks that promote transparency, shared problem solving, and institutional supports (Rahim, 2002; Tjosvold, 1991). Had I enacted them, the conflict likely would have been shorter and less disruptive.

Conclusion

This case illustrates how role ambiguity, communication breakdowns, and mismatched conflict styles transform technical disagreements into interpersonal disputes. The mediated, interest-based resolution restored collaboration and yielded procedural improvements. My retrospective plan emphasizes preventative clarity, structured communication, early interest-based reframing, and attention to emotions—strategies grounded in conflict management scholarship and suited to organizational practice (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974; Fisher & Ury, 1981; Robbins & Judge, 2019).

References

• Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(3), 216–244.
• Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. Yale University Press.
• Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.
• Jehn, K. A. (1997). Affective and cognitive conflict in workgroups: Sources, consequences, and measures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 256–282.
• Mayer, B. (2000). The Dynamics of Conflict: A Practitioner’s Guide. 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.
• Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational Behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.
• Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Xicom, Incorporated.
• Tjosvold, D. (1991). The conflict-positive organization: Stimulate diversity and create unity. Addison-Wesley.