<![CDATA[Organizational conflict sharpens scrutiny when it is handled well and erodes trust when it is not. This review asks how confrontation meetings and related structured dialogues contribute to conflict resolution, through what mechanisms and under what conditions. Following PRISMA 2020, searches of Scopus and Web of Science from January 2022 to April 2026 returned 444 records; 16 studies met the eligibility and quality criteria and were synthesized thematically. The evidence spans eight sectors and five world regions, and combines survey, case-study, mixed-method, and training-evaluation designs, including one cluster randomized trial. Six interrelated themes emerged: structured facilitation and communication capability; collaborative conflict-handling behavior; emotional intelligence and personality; psychological safety; trust and cognitive bias; and cultural adaptation. Confrontation meetings are not universally effective as stand-alone interventions; their contribution depends on facilitation quality, participant readiness, conflict type, power relations, baseline trust, and cultural fit. An explicit operational definition and a three-tier evidence classification separate the confrontation meeting, an organization-level process intervention, from the adjacent practices it is routinely conflated with. The six themes then supply empirical content for facilitation conditions that the third-party intervention tradition long proposed but rarely examined as a set. The resulting contingency framework links inputs, meeting mechanisms, moderators, and proximal against distal outcomes. Direct causal evidence remains limited: no included study evaluated an intervention satisfying the full definition.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
