When organizational structure is the root of dysfunctional conflict, redesigning that structure can offer an effective resolution. Structural conflict often arises not from personal animosity but from misaligned roles, incompatible goals, and competing performance metrics (Galbraith, Downey, & Kates, 2002). Organizational communication scholars highlight that systemic tensions—rather than individual behaviors—are frequently the true drivers of conflict in the workplace (Putnam & Poole, 1987). Consider the case of Vanessa, a lead engineer in charge of product development, and Tom, a procurement officer. Vanessa submits a list of components for purchase, only to have Tom reject key items based on cost concerns. Frustrated, she challenges his refusal, arguing that delays jeopardize the entire project. Tom counters that Vanessa’s preferences for leading-edge components consistently strain his budget. This exchange reflects a deeper issue: their roles are governed by conflicting incentives. Sharon, the vice president of the business unit, recognizes the structural nature of their conflict and proposes a solution. She changes their evaluation criteria so both Vanessa and Tom are jointly responsible for total product cost and performance outcomes. This realignment shifts them from adversaries to collaborators. When departments themselves are in conflict, a structural remedy might involve having both report to a common executive who can coordinate their priorities. By adjusting organizational architecture, leaders can foster environments that encourage cooperation over competition and support aligned performance goals.

Strategy 1: Change the Composition of the Team

Addressing Dysfunction Through Design

When interpersonal conflict stems from incompatible personalities, values, or working styles, adjusting the composition of the team may be necessary. This strategy focuses on realigning team membership to foster more productive collaboration and reduce persistent tension.

Organizational communication research suggests that conflict is often amplified when individuals with opposing styles or goals are placed in close proximity without adequate support or mediation (Gordon et al., 1990). In such cases, separating antagonistic members or introducing new voices can shift the team’s dynamic toward cooperation.

For example, if two team members consistently clash over decision-making approaches—one favoring innovation and the other risk-aversion—leaders might reassign one member to a different project or bring in a third party to mediate and balance perspectives. In more extreme cases, replacing a team member may be warranted if the conflict undermines group cohesion and performance.

However, scholars caution that changing team composition should not be the first resort. Before making personnel changes, leaders might try assigning conflicting parties to a low-stakes collaborative task, allowing them to build trust and mutual understanding in a controlled setting (Open Text WSU, n.d.). Even subtle adjustments—like seating arrangements—can reduce tension; research shows that seating antagonists side-by-side rather than face-to-face can decrease conflict intensity (Gordon et al., 1990).

Ultimately, this strategy recognizes that team chemistry matters. By thoughtfully curating team membership, leaders can create environments where diverse perspectives enhance rather than hinder collaboration.

Strategy 2: Create a Common Opposing Force

Transforming Rivalry into Collaboration

Group conflict within organizations often stems from internal competition—whether over resources, recognition, or strategic priorities. One way to mitigate this tension is by redirecting attention toward a shared external challenge or goal. Rather than allowing internal rivalries to fester, leaders can foster unity by emphasizing what the team collectively stands to gain—or lose—together.

Consider the case of two software development groups competing for limited marketing funds. Each team wants to maximize exposure for its product, leading to friction and siloed efforts. However, when leadership shifts the focus to an external competitor threatening market share, the teams begin to collaborate. By pooling resources and aligning messaging, they enhance the company’s overall marketing effectiveness and strengthen its competitive position.

Importantly, the “shared goal” need not be a rival company. It could be a broader challenge—such as navigating an economic downturn, responding to industry disruption, or preserving jobs during a recession. In these cases, departments that previously clashed may find common purpose in safeguarding organizational stability.

Organizational communication scholars note that aligning teams around shared goals reduces tension caused by misaligned priorities and fosters a sense of collective identity (Kaplan, 2023; Edmondson & Lei, 2014). This approach taps into social identity theory, which suggests that people are more likely to cooperate when they perceive themselves as part of a unified group facing a common challenge.

Strategy 3: Using Participatory Decision-Making

Balancing Voice and Efficiency in Group Conflict

In some cases, group conflict can be resolved through a democratic process—specifically, by allowing members to vote on a proposed solution. When implemented thoughtfully, participatory decision-making can foster a sense of fairness and inclusion, especially when all voices are heard and the process is transparent. The idea with the most support is adopted, and the group moves forward with a shared understanding of the outcome.

However, organizational communication scholars caution that this strategy must be used judiciously. If majority rule becomes the default mechanism—particularly when the same individuals or subgroups consistently “win”—it can breed resentment and disengagement among minority voices (Kaner et al., 2014). Overreliance on voting can also shortcut meaningful dialogue, reducing complex issues to binary choices and undermining the collaborative spirit of conflict resolution.

To be effective, participatory decision-making should follow a healthy discussion of the issues at hand. This includes exploring divergent perspectives, acknowledging emotional undercurrents, and seeking common ground. When used sparingly and with care, voting can serve as a practical tool for closure—especially when consensus is elusive but respectful deliberation has occurred.

Ultimately, the goal is not just to make a decision, but to ensure that the process itself strengthens group cohesion and trust. Leaders and facilitators play a key role in framing the decision, guiding discussion, and ensuring that all members feel heard—even if their preferred outcome isn’t selected.

Strategy 4: Engage in Collaboraitve Problem Solving

Focusing on Issues, Not Individuals

Collaborative problem-solving is one of the most widely endorsed approaches to conflict resolution in organizational settings. Rather than assigning blame or defending positions, this strategy encourages individuals or groups to focus on the problem itself—its causes, implications, and potential solutions. The goal is to shift attention away from interpersonal tension and toward shared understanding and constructive action.

Organizational communication scholars emphasize that effective problem-solving requires participants to uncover the root cause of the conflict, not just its surface symptoms (Bernstein & Ablon, 2011). This approach recognizes that in most conflicts, neither side is entirely right or wrong. Instead, each party brings valid concerns, perspectives, and constraints that must be acknowledged and integrated into the solution.

Collaborative problem-solving also promotes psychological safety, allowing individuals to express concerns without fear of retaliation or dismissal (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). When facilitated well, it fosters creativity, mutual respect, and long-term resolution—rather than temporary compromise or avoidance. Leaders play a critical role in guiding this process by modeling empathy, encouraging open dialogue, and helping teams move from reactive stances to proactive collaboration.

2. Managing Communication Climate

Creating Conditions for Resolution

A positive communication climate is essential for constructive conflict management in organizations. Defined as the emotional tone or atmosphere of interactions, communication climate shapes how individuals perceive messages, interpret intent, and respond to disagreement (Wood, 1999). In supportive climates, employees feel respected, heard, and valued—conditions that foster openness, trust, and collaboration. Conversely, defensive climates—marked by judgment, control, and indifference—can escalate conflict and inhibit resolution. Research shows that relational messages often carry subtext beyond content, signaling inclusion, dominance, or disregard through tone, body language, and even silence (Jahangir, Safdar, & Zaheen, 2021). When individuals perceive that their social and relational needs—such as respect, belonging, and autonomy—are unmet, they are more likely to react with defensiveness or disengagement. Leaders play a pivotal role in shaping climate by modeling empathy, encouraging dialogue, and removing barriers to honest communication. By cultivating a climate where people feel psychologically safe and relationally affirmed, organizations can reduce the frequency and intensity of conflict and promote ethical, solution-focused engagement.

3. Facework and Emotional Intelligence

Managing Identity and Emotion in Conflict

In addition to structural and strategic approaches to conflict management, the interpersonal dimension plays a critical role in shaping how conflict unfolds and whether it is resolved constructively. Two key concepts—facework and emotional intelligence—help explain why some conflicts escalate while others invite cooperation. Facework refers to the communicative behaviors individuals use to preserve self-image and protect others’ identities during interaction (Goffman, 1967; Cupach & Metts, 1994). In conflict situations, threats to “face”—such as public criticism, condescension, or exclusion—can trigger defensiveness and resistance, making resolution more difficult. Leaders and team members who practice face-sensitive communication are more likely to maintain respect, foster psychological safety, and avoid identity-based escalation.

Equally important is emotional intelligence, which involves the ability to recognize, understand, and manage one’s own emotions and empathize with the emotions of others (Goleman, 1995). High emotional intelligence supports key conflict management behaviors such as self-regulation, perspective-taking, and relational repair. Individuals with strong EI are better equipped to remain calm under pressure, listen without judgment, and respond with empathy—even when disagreement arises. Research shows that emotional intelligence enhances trust, collaboration, and long-term problem-solving (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Kellot, 2024). Together, facework and emotional intelligence provide a human-centered foundation for conflict resolution, helping organizations foster cultures of dignity, dialogue, and interpersonal insight.

1. Avoidance

The avoiding conflict style is characterized by low assertiveness and low cooperativeness. Individuals who adopt this approach tend to withdraw from conflict rather than engage with it directly, often denying that a problem exists or postponing decisions that might provoke disagreement. This style may be driven by discomfort with confrontation, fear of escalation, or personality traits such as a high need for affiliation or harmony. Common expressions include statements like “I don’t think there’s a problem” or “Let’s just move on,” signaling a reluctance to address underlying tensions. While avoidance can be appropriate in situations where the issue is minor, emotions are running high, or timing is poor, it becomes problematic when important concerns are consistently sidestepped. Overuse of this style can lead to unresolved issues, strained relationships, and diminished trust, especially if others perceive the avoider as indifferent or passive-aggressive. Organizational communication research suggests that avoidance may offer short-term relief but often allows conflict to simmer beneath the surface, potentially leading to greater dysfunction over time (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974; Shonk, 2025; Pollack, 2021). Developing emotional intelligence and psychological safety can help individuals move beyond avoidance and engage in more constructive dialogue.

2. Accommodation

The accommodating conflict style is marked by a high level of cooperativeness and low assertiveness. Individuals who use this approach tend to prioritize maintaining harmony and preserving relationships over asserting their own needs. They might say things like, “Let’s do it your way,” or “If it’s important to you, I can go along with it,” reflecting a willingness to concede for the sake of peace (Bennett, 2022).

This style can be effective when the issue at stake is far more important to the other party than to the accommodator, or when showing deference might help build goodwill and trust (AllWin Conflict Resolution Training, 2025). However, habitual accommodation can lead to overlooked personal needs, growing resentment, and the erosion of self-confidence. Over time, consistent self-suppression may create imbalances in the relationship dynamic and leave individuals feeling undervalued (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974).

Organizational communication experts recommend that accommodation be used strategically and sparingly. Balancing empathy with assertiveness through techniques such as boundary-setting and self-reflection can help ensure that accommodation remains a conscious act of compassion rather than a default behavior (Bennett, 2022; AllWin Conflict Resolution Training, 2025).

3. Compromise

The compromising conflict style represents a balanced approach, combining moderate assertiveness with moderate cooperativeness. Individuals who use this style aim to find a mutually acceptable solution by making concessions, often saying things like, “Perhaps I ought to reconsider my initial position,” or “Maybe we can both agree to give in a little” (MT Copeland, 2021). This style is particularly useful when both parties have equal power and the issue is moderately important, allowing for a resolution that partially satisfies everyone involved (CMA Consulting, 2025).

In a compromise, each party gives up something of value to reach a middle ground. A well-known example occurred in 2005 when the Lanesborough Hotel in London mistakenly advertised rooms for £35 instead of £350. Faced with a flood of bookings and a potential public relations crisis, the hotel agreed to honor the rate for up to three nights per guest—demonstrating a strategic compromise that preserved both customer goodwill and financial stability (Horowitz et al., 2006).

While compromise can lead to quick and fair outcomes, it may also result in surface-level solutions that fail to address deeper issues. Overuse of this style can leave parties feeling unsatisfied or resentful if they believe they’ve conceded too much (Niagara Institute, 2021). Experts recommend treating compromise as a temporary fix when time is limited or when maintaining relationships is a priority, but not as a substitute for deeper collaboration (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974; Shonk, 2025).

4. Competition

The competing conflict style is defined by high assertiveness and low cooperativeness. Individuals who adopt this approach prioritize their own goals and outcomes, often pushing for their preferred solution regardless of others’ perspectives or emotional responses. This style is typically characterized by direct, forceful communication and a win-lose mindset, where success is measured by achieving one’s own objectives (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974; Bennett, 2021). People using this style may say things like, “This is the only way forward,” or “I’m not backing down,” reflecting a strong desire to control the outcome.

While competition can be effective in situations requiring quick, decisive action—such as emergencies, ethical dilemmas, or when defending against harmful alternatives—it carries significant relational risks. Overuse of this style may lead to damaged trust, reduced collaboration, and strained interpersonal dynamics (CMA Consulting, 2025; Shonk, 2025). For example, a manager who overrides team input to enforce a policy may achieve short-term clarity but risk long-term disengagement and resentment among staff (Niagara Institute, 2021).

Organizational communication experts caution that the competing style should be used sparingly and strategically. When employed with emotional intelligence and transparency, it can project confidence and protect vital interests. However, when used indiscriminately, it may stifle innovation, escalate conflict, and erode morale (Rahim, 2011; Sorensen, 1999). Leaders are encouraged to balance assertiveness with empathy and to consider alternative styles—such as collaboration or compromise—when relationship-building and shared ownership are critical.

5. Collaboration

The collaborating conflict style is distinguished by high assertiveness and high cooperativeness. Individuals who adopt this approach aim to resolve conflict through open dialogue, mutual respect, and integrative problem solving. Rather than viewing conflict as a win-lose scenario, collaborators seek win-win outcomes by advocating for their own needs while actively listening to and incorporating the concerns of others (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974; Pollack, 2025). This style encourages both parties to challenge ideas—not each other—and to work together toward solutions that satisfy everyone’s core interests.

Collaboration is especially effective when the issue is complex, emotionally charged, or when long-term relationships and sustainable outcomes are at stake (MT Copeland, 2021; CMA Consulting, 2025). For example, consider an employee who wishes to pursue an MBA and requests reduced work hours. Rather than taking rigid positions, both the employee and management can explore alternatives—such as online coursework or tuition support—that honor the employee’s career goals while meeting organizational needs. This integrative approach allows both parties to gain without sacrificing what is personally important.

While collaboration requires time, emotional investment, and skilled facilitation, it often leads to deeper trust, stronger team cohesion, and more innovative solutions (Pollack, 2025; OfficeRnD, 2024). Experts emphasize that collaboration is not merely compromise—it’s a creative process that uncovers shared values and builds lasting agreements.

Which Conflict Style Is Best?

In organizational behavior, there is no universally “correct” way to manage conflict. The most effective approach often depends on the context, the stakes involved, and the personalities of those involved (Shonk, 2025). While each of the five conflict styles—avoiding, accommodating, compromising, competing, and collaborating—has its place, the collaborating style is widely regarded as the most constructive in a broad range of situations. It fosters mutual understanding, encourages creative problem-solving, and strengthens relationships over time (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974; Pollack, 2025).

That said, most individuals tend to default to a dominant style. You might recognize this in a friend who always seeks confrontation or a colleague who consistently backs down. The key to successful conflict management lies in adaptability—the ability to match your style to the situation. For instance, avoiding conflict may be wise when the issue is trivial or emotionally charged, such as ignoring a reckless driver to avoid road rage. On the other hand, when a coworker repeatedly takes credit for your ideas, confrontation may be necessary to protect your professional integrity.

Research also reveals that hierarchical roles influence conflict style preferences. Managers are more likely to adopt a competing or forcing style, while subordinates tend to favor avoiding, accommodating, or compromising (Howat & London, 1980). Moreover, conflict styles can be contagious—individuals often mirror the approach of the person they’re engaging with. If one party is highly assertive or competitive, others may respond in kind, escalating the tension (Valamis, 2025).

Ultimately, the most effective conflict managers are those who can assess the situation, understand the dynamics at play, and strategically select the style that will lead to the best outcome for all parties involved.

5 Phases of Negotiation

Distributive Negotiation Strategy

Claiming Value in Competitive Contexts

The distributive approach to negotiation—often referred to as positional bargaining—is grounded in the assumption of a fixed resource pool. Negotiators perceive the situation as a zero-sum game, where one party’s gain is inherently the other’s loss (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Patton, 2015). This “fixed-pie” mindset leads each party to maximize their share of the value, often through competitive tactics such as anchoring, withholding information, and strategic concessions (Malhotra & Bazerman, 2007).

For example, in budget negotiations between departments, an increase in marketing’s allocation may necessitate a proportional decrease in R&D’s funding. While this model is appropriate for one-time, transactional negotiations with limited relational stakes, it can constrain creativity and damage long-term collaboration (Flynn, 2023). Organizational communication scholars caution that overreliance on distributive tactics may escalate conflict and erode trust, especially in team-based or decentralized environments (Boni & Weingart, 2012).

Avoiding Common Mistakes in Negotiation

Recognizing Biases, Managing Emotions, and Refining Strategy

Even the most experienced negotiators are vulnerable to subtle missteps that derail outcomes. These mistakes often stem from predictable patterns of thought, emotion, and behavior. By understanding and addressing these pitfalls, negotiators can improve decision-making, foster collaboration, and achieve more favorable results. This section reframes common negotiation errors into three categories: cognitive biases, emotional traps, and strategic errors, offering a more teachable and research-aligned framework.

When All Else Fails: Third-Party Negotiations

In today’s interconnected and reputation-driven world, ethical negotiation is not just a moral ideal—it’s a strategic necessity. While hardball tactics may be legally permissible, they often violate ethical norms and damage long-term relationships. Ethical missteps—such as deception, manipulation, or excessive pressure—can erode trust, provoke retaliation, and tarnish your reputation as a negotiator (Mirra, 2024).

As J. Paul Getty once said, “You must never try to make all the money that’s in a deal. Let the other fellow make some money too…” This principle still resonates in modern business and campus settings alike. Whether you’re negotiating a group project role, a roommate agreement, or an internship offer, fairness and transparency matter.

Ethical negotiation involves:

• Honesty: Share relevant information truthfully.
• Promise-keeping: Follow through on commitments.
• Empathy and respect: Apply the Platinum Rule—treat others the way they want to be treated (Stark & Flaherty, 2003).

For college students, this might mean not lowballing a peer during a textbook resale or not ghosting a team member after agreeing to collaborate. Ethical behavior builds credibility and fosters future opportunities.

Negotiation in Cross-Cultural Communication

Cultural norms shape how people perceive conflict, communicate, and build trust. In cross-cultural negotiations, misunderstanding these norms can lead to breakdowns—even when intentions are good.

Conflict Tolerance

Cultures vary in their comfort with direct confrontation. For example:

• Japan and South Korea emphasize harmony and indirect communication (Lebra, 1976).
• Germany and the U.S. often view conflict as a productive tool for problem-solving (Tinsley, 1998).

A college sophomore from Missouri might be used to open debate in class, while an international student from Thailand may prefer subtle disagreement. Recognizing these differences helps avoid misinterpretation.

Communication Styles

In high-context cultures (e.g., Japan, China), meaning is often conveyed through tone, silence, and nonverbal cues. In low-context cultures (e.g., U.S., Germany), clarity and directness are valued (Adair et al., 2007).

For instance, American students may jump straight into negotiation over club budgets, while Chinese students might begin with small talk to build rapport. Misreading these cues can derail collaboration.

Relationship Building

In many cultures, trust precedes business. In Brazil, pushing negotiations during Carnival was seen as disrespectful, damaging relationships (Teague, 2006). Similarly, in China, nodding may signal attentiveness—not agreement (Hannon, 2006).

College students working on international group projects should avoid rushing decisions and instead invest time in relationship-building—perhaps through shared meals, informal chats, or collaborative brainstorming.

Cultural Intelligence in Practice

To navigate ethical and cultural complexities, negotiators must develop cultural intelligence (CQ)—the ability to adapt across cultural contexts. This includes:

• Awareness of your own biases and assumptions.
• Knowledge of cultural norms and values.
• Skills to adjust communication and behavior accordingly.

For example, a student negotiating a study abroad housing agreement in Spain may need to adjust expectations around punctuality, formality, and personal space.

Conclusion

In the evolving landscape of global communication and collaboration, understanding the ethical and cultural dimensions of negotiation is no longer optional—it’s essential. Whether navigating campus clubs, internships, or international partnerships, college students must cultivate trust, empathy, and cultural awareness to succeed in diverse and dynamic environments. Ethical negotiation fosters credibility and long-term influence, while cultural intelligence empowers individuals to engage respectfully across differences. Together, these principles form the foundation of effective, inclusive, and future-ready negotiation strategies—ones that not only close deals but strengthen relationships.

Section 10.7: Spotlighht

Section 10.8: Conclusion

Conflict in the workplace spans a wide spectrum—from minor irritations to severe, even violent, disruptions. Yet, when managed constructively, conflict can fuel creativity, drive innovation, and strengthen organizational resilience. Conversely, unresolved conflict can paralyze operations and erode morale. Within organizations, conflict often arises from structural complexities, such as matrix systems that assign multiple supervisors to one employee, leading to competing demands. Resource scarcity and competition among teams can further intensify tensions, while personality differences and communication breakdowns frequently trigger interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict.

Effectively addressing conflict requires a nuanced approach. No single method suits every situation; instead, resolution strategies vary in their emphasis on cooperation versus competitiveness. The key lies in selecting the right method for the context at hand.

Negotiation plays a central role in conflict resolution and other critical organizational processes. Strong negotiation skills can be transformative. Successful negotiations typically unfold in five phases: investigation, presentation, bargaining, and closure. Avoiding common pitfalls—such as accepting the first offer, allowing ego or emotion to dominate, setting unrealistic expectations, or repeating past mistakes—is essential for reaching favorable outcomes.

Finally, cultural awareness is vital. Conflict and negotiation styles vary across cultures, and understanding these differences can prevent miscommunication and foster more effective, respectful interactions. In today’s globalized workplace, cultural competence is not just a courtesy—it’s a strategic advantage.

Section 10.9: Case Study and Exercises

References

Adair, W. L., Okumura, T., & Brett, J. M. (2001). Negotiation behavior when cultures collide: The United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 371–385.

Adair, W. L., Weingart, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (2007). The role of negotiation offers in the information exchange process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 255–267.

Ahmed, S. (2021). Complaint!. Duke University Press.

Airbnb. (2020). Airbnb’s commitment to trust and safety. Company blog retrieved at https://news.airbnb.com/trust/

Aldrich, H. E. (1971). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

AllWin Conflict Resolution Training. (2025). Accommodating conflict resolution style: Everything you need to know. https://conflict-resolution-training.com/blog/accommodating-conflict-management-style/

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123–148.

American Arbitration Association. (2025). Arbitration and ADR services. https://www.adr.org

Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2012). Judgment in managerial decision making (8th ed.). Wiley.

Bazerman, M. H., & Neale, M. A. (1992). Negotiating rationally. Free Press.

Bennett, M. (2021). What’s the competing conflict style? Niagara Institute retrieved from https://www.niagarainstitute.com/blog/competing-conflict-style/

Bennett, M. (2022). Accommodating conflict style: What is it and when to use it? Niagara Institute. https://www.niagarainstitute.com/blog/accommodating-conflict-style/

Bernstein, S., & Ablon, J. S. (2011). Collaborative problem solving: An effective approach for managing conflict in the workplace. Mediate.com. Read the full article retrieved at https://mediate.com/collaborative-problem-solving-an-effective-approach-for-managing-conflict-in-the-workplace/

Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151–158.

Brebner, J. (2001). Personality and stress coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(3), 317–327.

Bulei, A. E. (2021). Conflict management in organizations – The role of alternative dispute resolution. Valahia University.

Cambria, J. J. (2025). Crisis negotiation strategies. NYPD Hostage Negotiation Team.

CMA Consulting. (2025). 10 pros and cons of compromising conflict style. Retrieved at https://cmaconsulting.com.au/pros-and-cons-of-compromising-conflict-style/

CMA Consulting. (2025). Pros & cons of competing conflict management style retrieved from https://cmaconsulting.com.au/pros-cons-of-competing-conflict-management-style/

CMA Consulting. (2025). What is collaborative style of conflict management and how to use it retrieved at https://cmaconsulting.com.au/what-is-collaborative-style-of-conflict-management-and-how-to-use-it/

Cote, C. (2023). Steps of the negotiation process. Harvard Business School Online. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/steps-of-negotiation

Coursera. (2025). Conflict Management: Definition, Strategies, and Styles. Read the article at https://www.coursera.org/articles/conflict-management

Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Sage Publications.

Dahle, C. (2001). Constructive confrontation at Intel. Fast Company, 44, 128.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Beersma, B. (2005). Conflict in organizations: Beyond effectiveness and performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320444000227

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (Eds.). (2008). The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.

DeAngelis, T. (2010, March). Managing conflict, the healthy way. gradPSYCH Magazine. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2010/03/conflict

DeFilippo, R. J. (2025). FBI crisis negotiation protocols.

Deutsch, M. (2004). Eastman Kodak ADR panel. In Organizational conflict resolution.

Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–43.

Elmoudden, D. (2023). Peacemaking communication: A rhetorical lens on conflict and transformation. Fountainhead Press.

Fisher, R. J. (1990). The social psychology of intergroup and international conflict resolution. Springer-Verlag.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.

Flynn, S. I. (2023). Managing conflict within organizations through negotiations. EBSCO Research Starters.

Galbraith, J. R., Downey, D., & Kates, A. (2002). Designing dynamic organizations: A hands-on guide for leaders at all levels. AMACOM.

Gallo, A. (2024). Getting Along: How to Work with Anyone (Even Difficult People). Harvard Business Review Press.

Gelfand, M. J., Brett, J. M., Gunia, B. C., Imai, L., Huang, T.-J., & Murayama, A. (2001). Toward a culture-by-context perspective on negotiation: Negotiating teams in the United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 678–694.

Gladwell, M. (2013). David and Goliath: Underdogs, misfits, and the art of battling giants. Little, Brown and Company.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Anchor Books.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.

Gordon, R. A., Slade, L. A., & Schmitt, N. (1990). The “science of seating” revisited: Effects of seating arrangements on group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 751–757. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.751

Hannon, K. (2006). Negotiating with Chinese companies: Cultural tips for success. U.S. Department of Commerce.

Highsmith, J. (2009). Agile project management: Creating innovative products. Addison-Wesley.

Hofmann, T. (2023). Five common psychological negotiation mistakes and how to avoid them. Negotiation Blog. https://negotiation-blog.eu

Horowitz, S., et al. (2006). Case studies in conflict resolution.

Howat, G., & London, M. (1980). Attributions of conflict management strategies in organizational settings.

Idham, M., Arumugam, N., Kaur, K., & Suppiah, P. C. (2022). Communication during crisis: Negotiation strategies. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(8), 983–1001.

Jäckel, E., et al. (2024). Active listening in integrative negotiation. SAGE Journals.

Jaffe, D. (2000). Organizational theory: Tension and change. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Jahangir, N., Safdar, A., & Zaheen, B. (2021). Impact of communication climate on conflict management styles among employees. Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies, 7(1), 63–68. Read the study at https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/conflictmanagement/chapter/8-2-meeting-needs-through-communication-climate/

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., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Wiley.

Kaner, S., Lind, L., Toldi, C., Fisk, S., & Berger, D. (2014). Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Kaplan, S. (2023). Experiential intelligence: Harness the power of experience for personal and business breakthroughs. Matt Holt Books.

Kellot, T. (2024). Resolve conflicts with emotional intelligence. Science of Mind. Read the article

Lasky, J. (2024). Integrative negotiation strategy. EBSCO Research Starters.

Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The manager as negotiator: Bargaining for cooperation and competitive gain. Free Press.

Layne, S. (1999). Mediation outcomes survey. Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office.

Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese patterns of behavior. University of Hawaii Press.

Lee, C.-C., Lin, Y.-H., Huang, H.-C., Huang, W.-W., & Teng, H.-H. (2015). The effects of task interdependence, team cooperation, and team conflict on job performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 43(4), 529–536.

Lee, S. (2025). Mastering negotiation in organizational communication. Number Analytics. https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/mastering-negotiation-in-organizational-communication

Lerner, J. S., Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Heart strings and purse strings: Carryover effects of emotions on economic decisions. Psychological Science, 15(5), 337–341.

Lumen Learning. (n.d.). Types of conflict. In Organizational Behavior and Human Relations. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-organizationalbehavior/chapter/types-of-conflict/

Lumineau, F., Fréchet, M., & Puthod, D. (2015). An organizational learning perspective on the contracting process. Organization Science, 26(1), 76–92.

Ma, Z. (2007). Toward a cognitive model of information exchange in negotiation. University of Ottawa.

Malhotra, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2007). Investigative negotiation. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 72–78.

Malhotra, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2007). Negotiation genius. Bantam Books.

McCarter, M. W., Fienberg, E., & Galvin, B. M. (2018). Disentangling cooperation in intragroup conflict. Journal of Management, 44(2), 551–580.

Messarra, L. C., Karkoulian, S., & El-Kassar, A. N. (2016). Conflict resolution styles and personality: The moderating effect of generation X and Y in a non-Western context. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(6), 792–810. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2016-0014

Mikkelsen, E. N., & Clegg, S. (2018). Unpacking the meaning of conflict in organizational conflict research. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 11(3), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12127

Mirra, M. (2024). Ethics in negotiation: Why they matter and how to incorporate them. Aligned Negotiation. https://www.alignednegotiation.com

Mirra, M. (2024). Overcoming cognitive bias in negotiation. Aligned Negotiation. https://www.alignednegotiation.com

MT Copeland. (2021). Collaborating conflict management style, explained retrieved at https://mtcopeland.com/blog/what-is-the-collaborating-conflict-management-style-and-when-should-you-use-it/

MT Copeland. (2021). Compromising conflict management style, explained retrieved at https://mtcopeland.com/blog/what-is-the-compromising-conflict-management-style-and-when-should-you-use-it/

Niagara Institute. (2021). Compromising conflict style: A brief overview retrieved at https://www.niagarainstitute.com/blog/compromising-conflict-style/

Nicotera, A. M., & Jameson, J. K. (2021). Organizational communication: Conflict and context. Routledge.

Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., & Yokochi, Y. (2003). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Quarterly, 51(3), 303–326.

OfficeRnD. (2024). Mastering the collaborating conflict style retrieved at https://www.officernd.com/blog/collaborating-conflict-style/

Open Text WSU. (n.d.). Fundamentals of Leadership: Conflict Management. Conflict Management – Open Text WSU retrieved at https://opentext.wsu.edu/organizational-behavior/chapter/10-4-conflict-management/

Park University. (2024). How to develop an effective crisis communication strategy.

Patton, B. (2015). Distributive negotiation strategies. Cambridge University Press.

Podziba, S. (1999). Transformative mediation in polarized groups.

Pollack, J. (2021). Avoiding conflict resolution style: Everything you need to know. Conflict Resolution Training. Read the article here https://conflict-resolution-training.com/blog/avoiding-conflict-management-style/

Pollack, J. (2025). Collaborating conflict style: What it is + how to apply it retrieved at https://pollackpeacebuilding.com/blog/collaborating-conflict-style/

Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. McGraw-Hill.

Putnam, L. L., & Poole, M. S. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 549–599). Sage Publications.

Putnam, L. L., & Poole, M. S. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 549–599). Sage Publications.

Rahim, M. A. (2011). Managing conflict in organizations (4th ed.). Transaction Publishers.

Rice, C. (2000). Conflict: From theory to action. In Psychology of Human Relations. Open Oregon Pressbooks. https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/psychologyofhumanrelations/chapter/9-1-understanding-conflict/

Rispens, S. (2014). Beneficial and detrimental effects of conflict. In O. B. Ayoko, N. M. Ashkanasy, & K. A. Jehn (Eds.), Handbook of conflict management research (pp. 19–32). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781006948.00008

Sandy, S., Boardman, S. K., & Deutsch, M. (2014). Personality and conflict. In P. T. Coleman, M. Deutsch, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 403–416). John Wiley & Sons.

Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for advantage: Negotiation strategies for reasonable people. Penguin Books.

Shonk, K. (2025). Conflict-management styles: Pitfalls and best practices. Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Explore the guide here https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/conflict-resolution/conflict-management-styles-pitfalls-and-best-practices/

Shonk, K. (2025). What is crisis management in negotiation? Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. https://www.pon.harvard.edu

Sorensen, R. L. (1999). Conflict management strategies used by successful family firms. Family Business Review, 12(4), 325–339.

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665.

Stark, P., & Flaherty, J. (2003). The only negotiating guide you’ll ever need. Crown Business.

Taylor, W. (1991, March–April). The logic of global business: An interview with ABB’s Percy Barnevik. Harvard Business Review, 69(2), 91–105.

Teague, M. (2006). Negotiating across cultures: Lessons from Latin America. International Business Review, 15(4), 389–402.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1970). Mediation guidelines.

Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Xicom.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw-Hill.

Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 82–90.

Thompson, L. (1991). Information exchange in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(2), 161–179.

Thompson, L. (2012). The mind and heart of the negotiator (5th ed.). Pearson Education.

Thompson, L., & Hrebec, D. (1996). Lose–lose negotiations: Overcoming barriers to integrative agreements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 28–38.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. Guilford Press.

Tinsley, C. H. (1998). Models of conflict resolution in Japanese, German, and American cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 316–323.

Tools4Dev. (n.d.). What is Participatory Decision-Making? Retrieved at https://tools4dev.org/blog/what-is-participatory-decision-making/

Transnational Matters. (2024). ADR: Effective conflict resolution. https://www.transnationalmatters.com

Tripathy, A. (2021). Interpersonal conflict and emotional intelligence. International Journal of Social Sciences Review, 9(1), 104–109.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

Valamis. (2025). 5 Conflict Management Styles Managers Must Know retrieved at https://www.valamis.com/hub/conflict-management-styles

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 145–180.

Webber, A. M. (1998). Leigh Steinberg: The most powerful agent in sports. Fast Company.

Whatcom Community College. (n.d.). Organizational Communication Anthology. Read the chapter at https://textbooks.whatcom.edu/cmst245/chapter/7-4/

Wheeler, M. (2023). Negotiation mastery. Harvard Business School Online.

Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2010). Interpersonal conflict (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Wood, J. T. (1999). Communication in our lives. Wadsworth Publishing.