This paper examines the nature and classification of conflict within organizational settings, drawing on both academic literature and the author's personal experience as a sales manager, engineering instructor, and basketball coach. It identifies two primary conflict types — emotional (A-type) and cognitive (C-type) — and analyzes five conflict management styles: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising. The paper further explores how gender, organizational status, cultural background, and personality influence the choice of conflict management style. A discussion section applies these concepts to an educational environment, concluding with practical recommendations for minimizing destructive conflict while preserving the productive tension that drives team performance and individual growth.
The paper demonstrates applied literature synthesis — the writer draws on multiple peer-reviewed sources and then explicitly maps those frameworks onto a real professional context (an educational and sports-coaching setting). Rather than summarizing sources in isolation, each citation is used to support or explain an observed phenomenon, which is a hallmark of graduate-level applied research writing.
The paper opens with a contextual introduction that establishes the author's positionality and research motivation. A formal literature review section defines conflict types and management styles. Three thematic subsections then analyze moderating variables. A "Dissonance and Conflicts" section bridges theory and application. The penultimate section addresses managerial competencies, and the paper closes with a combined discussion and recommendations section tailored to the author's educational setting. The bibliography follows APA formatting conventions.
Conflicts are natural. They are expected to arise in any interaction involving two or more individuals. No two people think, act, or react in the same manner. This variability creates the opportunity for conflict to arise in virtually any situation. Without conflict, life in organizations would become stagnant and the future of the organization would be jeopardized. Dissonance — or a need to find a better way of doing things — is often the seed that spurs a team toward higher levels of investigation and inquiry. The origin of conflict can often be traced to false perception (Burton, 1968). Within an organization, conflict can play an important role in giving workers and management alike a sense of direction and purpose, even in the presence of differing opinions.
The aim of this paper is to gain insight into the various conditions that can cause conflicts between individuals in organizations. The author's personal experience has been primarily in sales. As a manager, dealing with conflicts that arose within the team was a frequent responsibility, and being called upon to arbitrate or resolve those conflicts — with an expectation of fairness and balance — was common. Since then, the author has transitioned from a corporate setting to an academic one, teaching courses in engineering and also coaching the school's basketball team. In this new work environment, the main drivers of conflict are often very different from those encountered in sales, yet they are no less significant.
With this in mind, the author set out to understand the classifications of conflict and the means available to reduce its negative impact on the morale of those involved. As the basketball coach, situations frequently arise in which players want to do things their own way. Conflicts often emerge when a few team members refuse to relinquish control and expect the entire team to follow their thinking (Rahim, 2001). If not handled effectively, such conflict can result in team dysfunction — a fragmentation that defeats the team's core goal of winning games. Understanding the available options for handling these conflicts is therefore paramount.
Conflict is defined as "a disagreement regarding interests or ideas. Whether it is within oneself, between two people, or within an organization, it has a negative connotation" (Esquivel & Kleiner, 1997). Historically, conflicts in organizations have been considered unwanted and unattractive. Organizations encouraged conformity among their workers, and teams and groups increasingly viewed the person who created conflict as a troublemaker to be ostracized.
Not all conflicts are the same. Two distinct types have been identified: emotional conflict and cognitive conflict. Emotional conflict is personal, defensive, and resentful. Also known as "A-type conflict" or "affective conflict," it is rooted in anger, personal friction, personality clashes, ego, and tension. Cognitive conflict, by contrast, is largely depersonalized. Also known as "C-type conflict," it consists of argumentation about the merits of ideas, plans, and projects. At an interpersonal level, conflicts may originate from two sources: group identity, which arises when individuals have personalities and behavior patterns that do not synchronize well and are abrasive to one another; and group affiliation, where the conflict stems not from the individual's personality but from the group or team with which he or she identifies.
The type of conflict that emerges often determines how it ought to be managed. People generally hold a positive concept and image of themselves. Attitudes are value-laden statements — favorable or unfavorable — about objects, people, situations, or events, and they reflect how an individual feels about something. Conflicts frequently arise when the attitudes of two or more people do not mesh and individuals cannot move past those feelings. Emotional factors can become distorted and even overshadow an individual's reasoning, causing the situation to devolve into a win-lose competition. Disputing parties will be unwilling to compromise. When a conflict is resolved in a win-win manner, the negative aspects of the decision are minimized. In a no-win situation, however, every positive aspect of the alternative not chosen becomes apparent, while the negative aspects of the chosen solution only deepen the conflict.
Perceptions are generally a reactionary process. Individuals organize and interpret their sensory impressions in order to give meaning to their environment, and those perceptions can introduce a strong sense of how things "should" be. This subjective lens shapes how conflict is experienced and, consequently, how it is managed.
Conflicts in teams can generally be classified into three types: relationship conflicts, task conflicts, and process conflicts. Each type can have different impacts on teams within an organization (Van Slyke, 1999). Emotions and personal feelings can distort and overshadow a team's purpose or agenda, making task execution and completion difficult and potentially devolving the team into a highly dysfunctional environment.
Gender also affects conflict management style. Broadly speaking, men do not shy away from conflicts, while women typically tend to avoid conflict-based situations. Rahim and Bonoma's (1979) conceptualization of conflict management styles for interpersonal conflicts differentiates styles along two basic dimensions: concern for self and concern for others. "The first dimension explains the degree (high or low) to which a person attempts to satisfy their own concerns, while the second dimension explains the degree to which an individual tries to satisfy the needs or concerns of others" (Brewer, Mitchell, & Weber, 2002). Based on these two dimensions, five specific styles of conflict management have been identified: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising.
In the integrating style, there is high concern for both self and others. Avoidance is characterized by low concern for both self and others. The remaining three styles fall somewhere in between. The obliging style displays low concern for self and high concern for others, while the dominating style displays high concern for self and low concern for others. In the compromising style, concern for self and others is equally balanced. Research indicates that individuals select different types of conflict management styles based on the situation at hand and on the conflict styles of the other individuals involved (Blitman, 2002).
Many researchers argue that conflict management styles are not related to the biological sex of the individual, but rather to the role the individual plays as a result of environment and circumstance. Some studies indicate that women have a more cooperative orientation to conflict management compared to men, while other research suggests that women can be more competitive than men and that a cooperative style is not displayed in all situations. Traits shaped by traditional gender roles can also affect conflict management styles. Men have historically been viewed as breadwinners and family guardians, and consequently developed aggressive, independent, and assertive behavior. Women, viewed historically as homemakers, were encouraged to develop complementary characteristics such as sensitivity, cooperativeness, and emotional attachment.
Many conventional management traits — aggressiveness, competitiveness, and risk-taking — parallel those traditionally associated with males. Women competing in the corporate world therefore often display these same traits, effectively neutralizing the influence of biological sex. As a result, "a major weakness in much of the research examining sex differences in conflict management style has been the apparent assumption that biological sex is equivalent to gender role" (Brewer, Mitchell, & Weber, 2002).
An individual's status within an organizational structure is a stronger predictor of conflict management style than gender. People at lower levels in an organization tend to use avoiding styles, while higher-status individuals tend to employ dominating styles. A new employee will consequently display different conflict management styles compared to a long-tenured employee. Conflict management styles also shift depending on the "other party" involved: a new employee at a higher level might display more dominating behavior compared to a long-serving employee at a lower level. The hierarchical structure of any environment, therefore, has the ability to determine the conflict management styles used within it.
Communist and socialist regimes were premised on the idea that treating everyone equally would eliminate conflict and unrest in society. This theory, however, proved unsuccessful because it did not address the motivational needs of individuals. Recognizing that humans are by nature competitive — and that Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest operates at a basic level — is important. Attempting to eliminate the factors that cause dissonance may delay conflict but will never completely resolve it. In a work environment, making decisions that are more inclusive and tolerant of dissonant feelings can help reduce conflicts, though it can never fully eliminate them. Dissonance is not tolerated equally across all societies; many Asian societies, for instance, view it as a breakdown of the social system, and conformity is expected without justification.
You’re 45% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 4 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.