**5.2. Argumentation conflicts**

Argumentation conflicts are conflicts in which disagreement is grounded in incompatible arguments or arguments that the parties do not perceive as having the same strength. Argumentation conflicts typically arise when the conflict parties focus on very different arguments, but they can also arise when the parties are concerned with the same arguments but disagree about their soundness or practical implications.

In resolving argumentation conflicts, it is important to distinguish the aim of understanding arguments from the aim of determining their strength. This is a fundamental distinction that has received a lot of attention in philosophical communication theory. It is not possible to understand whether a person has a plausible justification for a point of view unless one has uncovered the person's justification in the first place [33, 34].

Achieving this aim of justificatory understanding in practical conflict resolution is to a large extent a matter of creating an atmosphere conducive to constructive and equal dialog [8–10, 13]. An important goal is to base communication with the parties on knowledge of why the parties think they are entitled to have the views that they have. Theorists have presented a variety of methods for resolving argumentation conflicts on the basis of this kind of communication, and although these methods differ in detail, there is widespread agreement that any strategy for resolving argumentation conflicts should involve four principles [7]: (i) make the parties understand that there is a problem, (ii) define the problem, (iii) find ways of solving the problem and (iv) if the problem cannot be solved, find ways to avoid it.

In the prevention of argumentation conflicts in organizations, it is essential to create mutual understanding of organizational knowledge and facts about frameworks that all employees must accept. Sound *communication management*—inspired by Habermas' theory [34, 35] of emancipatory dialog—presupposes that managers convey arguments that employees are capable of evaluating the soundness of. In an ideological sense, the ideal of focusing on rational arguments in conflict resolution falls under the principle of finding solutions that are grounded in shared knowledge of the best interests of the organization.
