In my organization, the conflict occurred between two engineers responsible for one project. Each of them insisted on his approach to a new IT architecture and did not even listen to the other party. I suppose both of them tried to prove their professional skills and expertise in this subject and, for this reason, insisted on their approach to change. The main negative outcomes of the conflict were aggressiveness and violence in relations, unproductive behavior and low spirit of other employees. The engineers did not want even to talk to other people about this conflict insisting on their approach to change. Aggressiveness, lack of understanding and neglect were the main causes of this conflict (Wood, 2003). In order to solve it, m ediation (third party) was used. Mediator played the core role here. Belonging to an independent part of the process he helped the parties of the conflicts being objective. The ability of a third party to resolve conflict can influence the outcome of it. It was found that the approaches proposed by both engineers had much in common (Wood, 2003). I suppose that listening, objectivity and loyalty would help both of the employees to avoid conflict and implement the project on time. In this case, listening practices is one of the most important principles of communication and conflict resolution. Listening practices imply mutual respect and confidence needed for successful conflict resolution. Subjects to be discussed should be clearly stated. If people are not open and attentive, they fail to perform effectively and solve current problems. The all-channel network involves full discussion and participation which enhance performance in teams. This network appears to work best where a high level of interaction is required among all members of the team in order to solve complex problems. Objectivity will benefit both the employees and organization creating a friendly atmosphere and trust. The personality of both workers can be described as charismatic. Following Freud, their superego dominates in human relations and determines their personal perspectives. Personal unconscious dominates in John’s personality while Steven can be described as a person with strong collective unconsciousness. For both employees, conflicts are caused by misunderstanding and low degree of participation in problem solving. In terms of Jung’s theory, if the parties can agree on mutual objectives then the problem is far easier to resolve than if they have conflicting objectless and personal agendas.(Feist and Feist, 2006). At the beginning of the conflict, the actions which might have led to negative conflict were neglect of the problem, response to aggressive behavior of others, and subjectivity. At the very beginning, nobody had wanted to solve the problem avoiding communication and discussions. Following Murrey, w the conflict became inevitable, many team members behaved aggressively trying to prove their positions and justified their actions. Aggressive behavior generated violent responses to the problem and subjectivity. Only a constructive approach and mediation helped to resolve the conflict. The strategies used to solve the conflict (maintain healthy conflict) were communication and listening, respect to position of others and account of cultural differences (Feist and Feist, 2006). Dealing with the personal issues and needs in any negotiation is both diff