Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
In business communication, you're being tested on more than just knowing what to do when conflict arises—you need to understand why certain strategies work in specific situations and how to select the right approach for different stakeholders, power dynamics, and organizational contexts. Conflict resolution sits at the intersection of several core competencies: interpersonal communication, emotional intelligence, negotiation theory, and organizational behavior. Exam questions often present scenarios where you must diagnose the conflict type and recommend an appropriate intervention.
The strategies below aren't just a toolkit to memorize—they represent fundamentally different philosophies about how people should engage when interests clash. Some prioritize relationship preservation, others focus on efficiency, and still others aim for systemic change. Don't just memorize the steps; know what communication principle each strategy demonstrates and when you'd choose one over another. That's what separates a passing answer from an excellent one.
Before you can resolve a conflict, you need to understand its structure. These strategies help you analyze what's actually happening beneath the surface tension.
Compare: Conflict Mapping vs. Identifying Root Causes—both are diagnostic tools, but mapping focuses on relationships and stakeholders while root cause analysis focuses on underlying issues. If an exam scenario involves multiple departments or external parties, reach for mapping first; if it's a recurring problem between two people, start with root causes.
These strategies leverage how you communicate to reduce tension and build understanding. The principle here is that conflict often stems from communication failures, so better communication can resolve it.
Compare: Assertive Communication vs. Nonviolent Communication—both emphasize honest expression, but assertive communication focuses on clarity and boundaries while NVC prioritizes empathy and connection. Use assertive communication when you need to establish limits; use NVC when preserving the relationship is paramount.
When emotions run high, logical problem-solving becomes impossible. These strategies address the emotional dimension of conflict first.
Compare: Emotional Intelligence vs. De-escalation Techniques—EI is a personal competency you develop over time, while de-escalation refers to specific tactical moves in the moment. An FRQ might ask you to demonstrate both: how would someone with high EI apply de-escalation techniques?
Once you understand the conflict and have managed emotional intensity, you select a resolution approach. These differ based on how much each party's interests are prioritized.
Compare: Collaboration vs. Compromise—both aim for mutual acceptability, but collaboration seeks to fully satisfy all parties while compromise asks each party to give something up. Collaboration produces better outcomes but requires more time and trust. Know when each is appropriate: high-stakes, ongoing relationships call for collaboration; time-sensitive, lower-stakes issues may warrant compromise.
Sometimes conflict requires a formal process or third-party involvement. These strategies provide frameworks for moving systematically toward resolution.
Compare: Negotiation vs. Mediation—negotiation is direct engagement between parties, while mediation involves a neutral facilitator. Choose negotiation when parties can communicate productively; bring in mediation when direct communication has broken down or power imbalances exist.
The most effective conflict resolution happens before conflict escalates. These strategies address systemic conditions that breed disputes.
Compare: Conflict Prevention vs. De-escalation—prevention addresses systemic conditions before conflict emerges, while de-escalation manages active emotional intensity. Strong organizations invest in both: prevention reduces conflict frequency; de-escalation skills handle what prevention misses.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Diagnostic Tools | Conflict Mapping, Identifying Root Causes, Perspective-Taking |
| Communication Skills | Active Listening, Assertive Communication, Nonviolent Communication |
| Emotional Management | Emotional Intelligence, De-escalation Techniques |
| Integrative Resolution | Collaboration, Win-Win Approach |
| Distributive Resolution | Compromise, Negotiation |
| Third-Party Intervention | Mediation |
| Systematic Process | Problem-Solving, Conflict Mapping |
| Proactive Approaches | Conflict Prevention Strategies |
Which two strategies both emphasize understanding others' viewpoints, and how do they differ in application? (Hint: one is diagnostic, one is communicative)
A manager notices that two team members have stopped speaking to each other and tension is visibly high in meetings. Which strategies should she apply first, and why does sequence matter?
Compare and contrast collaboration and compromise as resolution approaches. In what specific business scenario would you recommend compromise over collaboration, and what would you sacrifice by making that choice?
An FRQ describes a conflict between departments over resource allocation where both sides have valid needs and the relationship must continue long-term. Which resolution approach best fits, and which diagnostic tool would you use to prepare?
How does emotional intelligence function as a foundation for other conflict resolution strategies? Identify at least two strategies that become more effective when combined with high EI.