Robert didn't mince words. If a person's ideas were ill-considered, he was likely to tell them that their ideas were bad. If there was a disagreement, he plainly stated that the person with the opposing viewpoint was wrong. To some, his manner was abrasive and uncollegial and this was a source of:

a. Interpersonal conflict.

b. Administrative conflict.

c. Interactionist conflict.

d. Goal-oriented conflict.

Option A                  

Explanation:

Note how Robert does not establish a form of trad-able and questionable conflict. His aim was not to enable conversations which could lead to issue-solving and goal accomplishment. His intention is simply to assert his case, say that he is correct and that somebody else is incorrect, without any regard for the mental anguish that he may trigger. That's just what interpersonal dispute is: a difference of opinion between an organisation's individual or group resulting in frustration and disappointment.

one way archaeology us understand the past is through the material objects it finds, allowing us to know what was being used, and when. for example a dig recently found a flute, believed to be the oldest musical instrument found to date.

i hope this

answer; /// you data to develop general ideas or theories;