problem solving conflict style

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Your Conflict Resolution Style Says About You and Is It Healthy?

Better conflict resolution skills can improve your relationships

Rachael is a New York-based writer and freelance writer for Verywell Mind, where she leverages her decades of personal experience with and research on mental illness—particularly ADHD and depression—to help readers better understand how their mind works and how to manage their mental health.

Dr. Sabrina Romanoff, PsyD, is a licensed clinical psychologist and a professor at Yeshiva University’s clinical psychology doctoral program.

Katleho Seisa / Getty Images

The Five Conflict Resolution Styles

Common types of conflict in relationships, how to determine your conflict resolution style, how to improve your conflict resolution skills, can a relationship work if you have different conflict resolution styles.

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), one of the most widely-used models of conflict management, identifies five conflict resolution styles: competing, avoiding, collaborating, accommodating, and compromising.

While each style can be appropriate to different situations, a collaborating style is generally the healthiest for relationships because it emphasizes a team-oriented approach to finding a solution that satisfies both partners. By the same token, a competing style often puts excess strain on a relationship because it pits one partner against the other with the assumption that only one can win.

Research suggests that conflict resolution style has an even bigger impact on the strength and longevity of a relationship than the kind of conflicts or frequency of conflict. In other words, how you fight matters more than how often you fight or what you fight about.

Read on to learn more about each conflict resolution style, how to figure out your style, how that can impact your relationships, and how to develop a healthier conflict resolution style.

The five conflict resolution styles described by the TKI are positioned along a spectrum of cooperativeness and assertiveness .

Cooperativeness refers to the extent to which a person tries to understand and satisfy their partner’s concerns. Assertiveness, meanwhile, refers to the extent to which a person seeks to satisfy their own concerns.

A style leaning too far to either extreme can be unhealthy. For example, people who are too assertive and make no effort at all to satisfy their partner’s concerns can end up making that partner feel uncared for and, ultimately, unfulfilled in the relationship. But people who are too cooperative and refuse to assert themselves at all can end up creating a similar relationship dynamic, where one partner always gets their needs met and the other never does.

• Competing : This style approaches the conflict as if it’s a battle of wills where one person will win and one will lose. It’s less about solving the problem and more about figuring out which person gets to have their way this time. Eventually, this can erode the very foundation of the relationship as partners increasingly view each other as competitors battling for control over the relationship.
• Avoiding : This style tries to pretend the conflict doesn’t exist. Avoidance is usually done out of fear that the conflict could hurt or even end the relationship. But it’s not a long-term solution because you can’t solve a problem if you refuse to confront it. This, too, can erode the relationship as the unresolved problem puts strain on it and becomes harder to ignore.
• Collaborating : A collaborating couple treats conflicts as an “us versus the problem” situation. Rather than competing against each other, they work as a team to figure out a solution to the problem where both partners win. It leads to the best outcomes, but it also takes the most energy, patience, and empathy , especially when the problem doesn’t have an obvious win-win solution.
• Accommodating : One partner chooses to neglect their own needs or concerns for the sake of keeping the peace. For relatively small issues, like where to go for dinner, that might be fine. But for bigger issues, it’s not a long-term solution because it only “solves” the problem for the partner whose needs were accommodated. The one doing the accommodating will still feel like the issue isn’t resolved.
• Compromising : A compromise is a middle ground between two opposing sides. It still positions the partners as competitors, but instead of fighting for victory, they negotiate a solution that’s acceptable to both. Rather than win-win, it’s more often a draw where each side is left only partially satisfied. For tricky issues where there just isn’t a win-win, compromise is a good alternative. But when couples rely too much on compromise, both partners can end up feeling like they’re sacrificing too much for the sake of the relationship.

Conflict is normal in every relationship. The more two people try to build a life together, the more they will confront differences in views and expectations as they navigate the logistics of combining finances, sharing responsibilities, and agreeing on what they want for their future together.

• Financial disagreements . Couples can often get into disagreements about how to balance saving for the future with paying for the lifestyle they want right now. Others will disagree about how to share financial responsibilities.
• Parenting disagreements . Differing views on discipline, nutrition, education, and division of parenting labor can all be tough conflicts to navigate.
• Division of household labor . People might have different standards of cleanliness that are hard to combine. In other cases, one person might end up carrying more weight than the other.
• Intimacy . This refers to sex as well as other kinds of emotional and physical intimacy like cuddling, spending quality time together, and expressing your love and appreciation for each other. While it’s natural for intimacy to fluctuate over the course of a relationship, conflict can arise when one or both of you start to feel less loved than they used to at other points in the relationship.

Facing conflict in a relationship is not a sign of failure, but how you navigate that conflict can have serious consequences for the health of your relationship.

To figure out which style you tend to use in conflicts, it helps to see each one in a real-world context.

How People With Varying Conflict Resolutions May Respond to Conflict

Consider this real-world scenario to figure out your conflict resolution style.

Picture a couple with a teenage daughter. While she used to get a good mix of As and Bs on her report cards in the past, it’s shifted to a mix of mostly Cs with a few Bs now that she’s in high school.

The first parent wants to discipline the daughter when she comes with her latest report card of mostly Cs. The lower grades are going to make it hard to get into a decent college and have a bright future. The second parent thinks discipline is uncalled for. Cs are still passing grades. As long as she’s passing her classes, she should be given some room to live her own life.

Now, put yourself in this situation and consider how you would respond. After, you've decided how you think you might respond, read ahead to see which style best matches your response.

• A competing parent would continue to rehash their own point of view, either refuting or dismissing any counterpoints or concerns brought up by the other parent. They’ll continue arguing until one gives in or they both get exhausted and temporarily drop the issue without resolving it.
• An avoiding parent would ignore the topic altogether. The second parent might hide the report card, for example, hoping the first parent doesn’t find it so they don’t have to confront the issue.
• An accommodating parent would just let the other one do what they think is best. The first parent might just drop the issue as soon as they encountered any pushback from their partner.
• A compromising parent would try to find a middle ground. Perhaps they settle on not punishing her this time, but sitting her down for a serious discussion and a warning that she will be punished if her future report cards don’t improve.
• A collaborating parent would look for a solution that addressed the concerns of both parents. That might look like sitting their daughter down to ask her about school and her plans for the future. The parents can uncover any struggles she might be dealing with that are causing the declining grades or else work with her to figure out what she wants for her future and what kind of grades she’ll need to achieve that. That way, the first parent can leave satisfied that they’re helping their daughter achieve the goals she has for herself while the second parent is satisfied that they’re not placing undue pressure on her.

Conflicts are difficult by definition, so don’t beat yourself up if you aren’t great at resolving them.

Conflict Resolution Tips

Follow these tips to improve your conflict resolution skills:

• Forgive each other and start with a fresh slate . If your conflict resolution styles were unhealthy in the past, it’s easy to go into future conflicts expecting the same unhealthy dynamic to emerge. That expectation can become a self-fulfilling prophecy if you lean on old defensive habits that trigger your partner to fall back into their own old habits. So you both need to agree to forgive the past hurt and be patient and forgiving with each other as you work on developing a healthier conflict resolution style.
• Listen and repeat . Don’t interrupt each other when you’re talking. In addition to letting the other person finish speaking, start your response by recapping what they said to confirm that you understood them.
• Hold back judgment . If you feel the other person’s concerns are overblown or unimportant, keep it to yourself. Both of you need to be able to talk openly about your thoughts and feelings without worrying that they’ll just be dismissed.
• Treat it like a brainstorming session, not an argument . Each of you will throw out solutions that the other person doesn’t like. Instead of judging it, focus on addressing the elements of the plan that don’t work and suggesting alternatives.
• Brainstorm with empathy. Instead of focusing only on your needs, focus on ways to incorporate your partner’s concerns into the solution you’re proposing. Even if those concerns aren’t as important to you, you can still look for ways to tweak your original idea to address them. Your partner should do the same.

You don’t need to have matching styles to maintain a healthy relationship. However, it’s still important to find balance in how you resolve conflicts. If one partner has a competing style while the other has an accommodating style, for example, it’s easy for the relationship to become extremely one-sided, with the competing partner often getting their way.

It's important to find balance in how you resolve conflicts.

If you feel like you and your partner struggle to really resolve conflicts or it’s become one-sided , couples therapy can help you develop a better approach.

How a Couples Therapist Can Help

Therapists that specialize in couples counseling can be great at diagnosing where the miscommunication is happening and helping a couple practice healthier conflict resolution strategies.

Frequently Asked Questions

In general, it should be collaborative. A healthy relationship is one that fulfills both partners, which means both partners need to find the balance between asserting their own needs and meeting the needs of their partner.

If the problem will impact the relationship or either person’s future happiness, then yes. When you confront a major conflict, you either need to find a way forward that satisfies both of you or acknowledge that this might be a sign of incompatibility.

If you don’t have much practice with healthy conflict resolution, it can be hard to tell the difference between fundamental incompatibility and just lacking the skills to find a good resolution.

A couple’s therapist can help you navigate this situation and help both of you develop healthier conflict-resolution styles. 

Smaller conflicts about general annoyances and pet peeves, however, do not always need to be discussed. But if something bothers you or hurts your feelings, it's certainly worth bringing up.

Mossanen M, Johnston SS, Green J, Joyner BD. A practical approach to conflict management for program directors . Journal of Graduate Medical Education. 2014;6(2):345-346. Doi:10.4300/JGME-D-14-00175.1

Noller P, Feeney JA. Communication in early marriage: responses to conflict, nonverbal accuracy, and conversational patterns . In: Bradbury TN, ed. The Developmental Course of Marital Dysfunction. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press; 1998:11-43. Doi:10.1017/CBO9780511527814.003

By Rachael Green Rachael is a New York-based writer and freelance writer for Verywell Mind, where she leverages her decades of personal experience with and research on mental illness—particularly ADHD and depression—to help readers better understand how their mind works and how to manage their mental health.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

13 Conflict Resolution and Problem Solving

Chapter 13 Check-in:

• Identify Conflict Causes and Effects
• Explore Conflict Approaches Solutions
• Basic Problem Solving Strategy PDCA

Like all communication, good conflict management and resolution requires your time: listen, reflect, and consider all elements of a situation and the people involved.  It is not a simple process and there are some steps to help you navigate the process.  In the end, it is about the relationship.

Frequently considered a negative, conflict can actually be an opportunity for growth in relationship or work.  Your attitude towards the situation and person plays a role in any outcome.  Adam Grant, Professor of Psychology at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and Saul P. Steinberg Professor of Management, notes that “The absence of conflict is not harmony, it’s apathy.  If you are in a group where people never disagree, the only way that could ever really happen is if the people don’t care enough to speak their minds.” (Grant, February 2021).

However, it is easy to feel at a loss in an immediate conflict situation.  Here are some brief points to consider when faced with more than just a disagreement.

Conflict is emotional: it is much greater than a difference of opinions.  It is usually an expression of not being heard, seen, valued or respected.   It is based on a deeply person need and emotional response, based on perceptions which have identified a threat in any form.  If conflict is ignored, it can fester and result in such entrenched opinions and sides that resolution appears impossible (Segal et al, 2020).

The first step is to determine what the actual problem is as perceived by all parties.  The Conflict Tree analogy is especially useful if you respond well to visuals (O’Connor, 2020).  It is an excellent activity for a group or individual to clarify the effects (branches), core problems (trunk), and even causes of the issue (roots).

Once the actual problem is identified, you can move on to tackling a resolution together.

Approaches to Conflict

There are generally five styles for approaching conflict (Benoliel, 2017) and understanding what they are and what style you lean towards, identifies how you will move through the process.  These categories are determined by whether the focus is on the relationship or the end goal of a task/project.  While these may be more specific to workplace conflicts, they certainly identify personal conflict responses as well.

Collaboration is marked by a balanced focus on the relationship with others and meeting long-term objectives.  A Competition style is marked by individuals who are assertive and probably uncooperative who demonstrate that their priority is the outcome of the project more than the relationships.  Although few people enjoy conflict, the Avoidance style focuses on the the immediate unpleasantness and therefore avoids the issues.  This traditionally marks individuals who are unassertive and uncooperative largely because they assume it is safer to ignore than face an issue.  Sometimes there are individuals who will do anything to please others: this Accommodation approach results in self-sacrifice and is usually the route taken by those who care more about the relationship than the outcome.  Unfortunately, they are frequently taken advantage of in their efforts to please others.  Lastly, there are those who prefer the Compromise strategy. This may seem expedient in the attempt to resolve the problem by aiming for mutually acceptable terms and concessions, it does frequently leaves no one side satisfied even though it allows most to maintain an assertive and cooperative stance.

Strategies for Solutions

Sometimes those involved in conflict turn to an third person for assistance to resolve a conflict.  A mediator can listen to the perspectives of those in the dispute and focuses on helping each side hear the concerns and priorities of the other.  Working with the individuals in conflict, a mediator aims to help them create a solution acceptable to both sides.  Sometimes the third party is an Arbitrator whose role is to hear each side and provide a decision to resolve the dispute.  In some cases the conflict results in the even more formal process of a trial.

There are four key skills you need to approach conflict resolution with or without a third party involved (Segal et al, 2020; Fighting Fair, n.d.).

Conflict can be a very stressful experience and your Stress Management is an essential first step.  When we are stressed, we can’t think clearly, we can’t understand someone else’s thoughts or feelings, and it makes communication very difficult.  Use whatever method works best for you to manage your stress.

Once your stress is managed, it is easier to exert Control over your Emotions.  Recognize the emotions you are experiencing to assist in your processing the experience without having a purely emotional response.

With your stress and emotions recognized and managed, it makes it easier to recognize and pay attention to the feelings you and the other people express  and you can Identify Non-Verbal Communication.   Much is said without words and body language is a good indication of how the other person feels towards the situation.

Respect each other is standard for every communication situation and essential to remember if you are in a position of conflict.  Personal attacks, or drawing on personal knowledge, has no productive part in conflict resolution.

Many resources may explain the benefits of humour, but caution should be used.  Sometimes an emotional situation is not the best time for humour as you can unintentionally be seen to diminish the importance another person places on the experience.

Work together to identify the problem by taking the time to see it from multiple perspectives.  Be clear about the desired results and end goal.  Think about the relationships and long term impacts that any course of action may have on all parties.  It takes commitment to resolve a conflict.

Problem Solving

We covered Reflection and Feedback in Chapter 12 and these are essential steps for effective conflict resolution and problem solving. Even the Trial and Error process of problem solving relies on evaluating the success of an action before moving on to another attempt.

Many different approaches to problem solving exist though the basic core approach can be seen across geographic and language borders.  The PDCA approach – Plan, Do, Check, Act – provides the basic four steps process that can be expanded to suit any profession or experience (Plan, Do, Check, Act, 2021).

Problem solving starts with a clear identification of problem.  Then you need to clarify the desired end result.  The development of a plan can be as short or as long as necessary.  Once you have a plan, you have to implement it: Do.  Check is your opportunity to evaluate the success of your plan and make any amendments necessary.  Finally, Act: put your strategy into practice.  An important point to remember is that the reflection and evaluation should be an ongoing part of the solution you implement.

Chapter 13 Check-out:

• Explore Conflict Approaches and Solutions

Remember your last conflict with another person.  How was it resolved?  How would you like it to have been resolved?  What could you have done to implement that change in result?

How do you usually approach problem solving?  How successful has it been for you? 

What, if anything, would you like to change about how you’ve problem solved in the past?

Resources and References

Benoliel, B. (2017). Five styles of conflict resolution.  Walden University.  [Online]  https://www.waldenu.edu/news-and-events/walden-news/2017/0530-whats-your-conflict-management-style

Fighting Fair to Resolve Conflict. (n.d.).  Counselling and Mental Health Centre. University of Texas at Austin. [Online] https://cmhc.utexas.edu/fightingfair.html

Goleman, D. (April 2012). Daniel Goleman Introduces Emotional Intelligence .  Big Think. [Online] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7m9eNoB3NU

Grant, A., (February 2021). The Easiest Person to Fool .  The Hidden Brain. NPR Podcast. [Online] https://hidden-brain.simplecast.com/episodes/the-easiest-person-to-fool-f1hbMrGr

Grant, A., (April 2021). The Science of Productive Conflict . TED Podcast. [Online] https://www.ted.com/podcasts/worklife/the-science-of-productive-conflict-transcript

O’Connor, T., (October 2020). 3 Simple Conflict Analysis Tools That Anyone Can Use. [Online] https://medium.com/p/c30689757a0d

Plan Do Check Act: A Simple Problem Solving Methodology. (2021).  Educational-Business-Articles.com [Online] https://www.educational-business-articles.com/plan-do-check-act/

Segal, J., Robinson, L., and Smith, M. (2020). Conflict Resolution Skills. Helpguide.org. [Online] https://www.helpguide.org/articles/relationships-communication/conflict-resolution-skills.htm

Media Attributions

• Brain Ponder © Luc Grenier

Copyright © by Wendy Ward is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

Conflict Styles, Outcomes, and Handling Strategies

Source: https://pixabay.com/photos/workplace-team-business-meeting-1245776/

Conflict is inevitable among humans (Rahim, 2011). The species Homo sapiens has been learning about conflict throughout its development (Bartos & Wehr, 2002). Since the onset of the last century, individuals, groups, organizations, and communities are more aware of how to understand the nature of conflict and how to address conflict. Conflict is a natural outcome of human interaction that begins when " two or more social entities (i.e., individuals, groups, organizations, and nations) come in contact with one another in attaining their objectives " (Rahim, 2011, p. 1). Bartos and Wehr (2002) defined conflict as " a situation in which actors use conflict behavior against each other to attain incompatible goals and/or to express their hostility " (p. 23). The authors defined conflict behavior as " any behavior that helps the party to achieve its goal that is incompatible with that of the opponent or that expresses its hostility toward them " (p. 23). Simply stated, conflict occurs when parties have differing goals or have tension toward each other related to an issue that affects them both.

Based on an analysis of the literature, Rahim (2011) synthesized two opposing viewpoints of conflict outcomes. He identified functional and dysfunctional outcomes of conflict.

Functional outcomes (Rahim, 2011, p. 6)

• Innovation, creativity, and change
• Improved decision-making processes
• Alternative solutions
• Synergetic solutions to common problems
• Enhanced individual and group performance
• Opportunities to search for new approaches to solve problems
• Opportunities to articulate and clarify the positions of each party

Dysfunctional outcomes (Rahim, 2011, p. 7)

• Stress, burnout, and dissatisfaction
• Reduced communication between individuals and groups
• Climate of distrust and suspicion
• Reduced job performance
• Increased resistance to change
• Reduced commitment and loyalty

The functional outcomes reveal positive consequences of conflict, while dysfunctional outcomes emphasize the negative consequences of conflict. Relationships among individuals and groups can have benefits from conflict that stimulates positive effects.

What is conflict strategy? Conflict strategy is " an intention to produce positive outcomes that must accommodate multiple perspectives, address a variety of issues, and maintain positive relationships " (Sorenso, 1999, p. 327). Conflict strategies allow you to positively navigate tensions or disagreements.

Conflict-Handling Styles and Conflict Management Strategies

Organizational behavior researchers extensively discuss conflict management models or conflict-handling strategies or styles in the literature. (e.g., Thomas & Kilmann, 1974; 1978; Thompson, 1990; Tjosvold, 2006, Rahim, 2011).  The Thomas and Kilmann model (1974) conceptualizes five conflict-handling styles based on two basic concerns, including concern for self and concern for others:

• competition (high concern for self, low concern for others),
• collaboration (high concern for self and others),
• compromise (moderate concern for self and others),
• accommodation (low concern for self and high concern for others), and
• avoidance (low concern for self and others).

When experiencing conflict with your team member, clientele, or volunteers, consider familiarizing yourself with the following conflict-handling styles and applying the suggested strategies. We have also added examples from an imaginary scenario to help you better understand each conflict style.

Competition

Competition is an approach where concern for self (self-interest) is high and satisfaction is important. Most of the time, competition is associated with negative effects and emotions, such as stress and anger, negativity, and harmed relationships (Bergman & Volkema, 1989; Jehn, 1997; Sorensen, 1999; Rahim, 2011).

Example: Both you and your team member want a different idea to be the company's next advertising campaign. You both think your idea is best.

Suggested strategy : All parties should demonstrate the willingness to adapt or coalesce (Lansberg & Astrachan, 1994). Explain to the other party that you are willing to work together.

Accommodation

Accommodation is the opposite approach of competition, where there is high concern for others' desires and low concern for self or personal desires. In other words, accommodation is a willingness to get along, provide support, and contribute for a healthy relationship (Seymour, 1993).

Example: Both you and your team member want a different idea to be the company's next advertising campaign. However, your team has been fighting a lot lately, so you think it is best to go with your team member's idea and keep the peace.

Suggested strategy : All parties should demonstrate the willingness to accommodate and reduce assertiveness (Rahim, 2011; Sorensen, 1999). Explain to the other party that you value their desires. Let the other party offer ideas for solutions.

Collaboration

Collaboration is an approach where all parties involved demonstrate a willingness to adapt and attempt to satisfy the concerns of others. In the literature related to "negotiation," this approach is described as a "win-win" solution.  

Example: Both you and your team member want a different idea to be the company's next advertising campaign. You think elements from both of your ideas could be combined to create an even better campaign.

Suggested strategies : All parties should demonstrate their willingness to devote their time and effort to resolving the conflict. Moreover, all parties should practice trust-based communication, mutual support, and openness (Dyer, 1986; Rahim, 2011; Sorensen, 1999). Explain to the other party you are willing to spend time addressing the issue. Express that you are open to feedback, want to work together, and have the other party's best interests at heart.

Compromise is an approach where all parties involved highly integrate and equally participate in finding an acceptable solution. However, there is a possibility that no one will feel fully satisfied.

Example: Both you and your team member want a different idea to be the company's next advertising campaign. You think maybe you could take elements from both ideas, even though the end result may not be exactly what either of you want.

Suggested strategies : All parties should demonstrate their willingness to "keep the peace" (Rahim, 2011.) Explain to the other party that you are focused on finding the best solution for everyone without "making waves."

Avoidance is an approach where all involved parties, or one party, avoids discussing and addressing conflict or denies that conflicts exist because of low mutual trust and low satisfaction with the situation. This approach escalates frustrations and negativity.  

Example: Both you and your team member want a different idea to be the company's next advertising campaign. However, you do not even want to bring up that you have a different idea due to tension among the team lately.

Suggested strategies : Avoidance is not a relationship-building strategy. If appropriate, give the other party time to "cool down". This may decrease tension but at the same time also limit conflict-solving progress (Kaye & McCarthy, 1996; Rahim, 2011; Sorensen, 1999). Determine if there is a way you can healthily address the conflict with strategies from one of the other styles and whether or not the conflict is worth having.

Bergman, T. J., & Volkema, R. J. (1989). Understanding and managing interpersonal conflict at work: Its issues, interactive processes, and consequences.  Managing conflict: An interdisciplinary approach , 7-19.

Bartos, O. J., & Wehr, P. (2002).  Using conflict theory . Cambridge University Press.

Dyer, W. G. (1986).  Cultural change in family firms: Anticipating and managing business and family transitions . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes.   International journal of conflict management ,  8 , 287-305.

Kaye, K., & McCarthy, C. (1996). Healthy disagreements.  Family business ,  1 , 71-2.

Lansberg, I., & Astrachan, J. H. (1994). Influence of family relationships on succession planning and training: The importance of mediating factors.   Family business review ,  7 (1), 39-59.

Rahim, M. A. (2010).  Managing conflict in organizations . Fourth Edition. Transaction publishers. New Brunswick, NJ

Seymour, K. C. (1993). Intergenerational relationships in the family firm: The effect on leadership succession .  Family business review ,  6 (3), 263-281.

Sorensen, R. L. (1999). Conflict management strategies used by successful family firms.  Family business review ,  12 (4), 325-339.

Thomas, K., Kilmann, R., & Thomas-Kilmann Conflict, M. O. D. E. (1974). Instrument.  Xicom, Tuxedo, NY .

Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1978). Comparison of four instruments measuring conflict behavior .  Psychological reports ,  42 (3_suppl), 1139–1145.

Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin , 108 (3), 515-532.

Tjosvold, D. (2006). Defining conflict and making choices about its management.   International Journal of conflict management , 17 (2)

• Adult leadership
• Volunteerism
• Volunteer management

You may also be interested in ...

Inteligencia cultural en el lugar de trabajo

Conflictos en los equipos de trabajo: las pautas para la resolución de conflictos

Coaching Versus Mentoring: What is the Difference?

Establishing a Culture of Lifelong Learning in the Workplace

Realistic and Optimistic: Managing Mindset in Challenging Times

Tips for How to Improve Servant Leadership Practices

Visión Organizacional y el Rol Del Lideres en Organizaciones sin Fines de Lucro

Best Practices for Managing and Moderating Community Social Media Groups

Conducting Effective Surveys - 'Rules of the Road'

Difficult Discussions: Tips for Tackling Conversations You Don't Want to Have

Personalize your experience with penn state extension and stay informed of the latest in agriculture..

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

5 Strategies for Conflict Resolution in the Workplace

• 07 Sep 2023

Any scenario in which you live, work, and collaborate with others is susceptible to conflict. Because workplaces are made up of employees with different backgrounds, personalities, opinions, and daily lives, discord is bound to occur. To navigate it, it’s crucial to understand why it arises and your options for resolving it.

Common reasons for workplace conflict include:

• Misunderstandings or poor communication skills
• Differing opinions, viewpoints, or personalities
• Biases or stereotypes
• Variations in learning or processing styles
• Perceptions of unfairness

Although conflict is common, many don’t feel comfortable handling it—especially with colleagues. As a business leader, you’ll likely clash with other managers and need to help your team work through disputes.

Here’s why conflict resolution is important and five strategies for approaching it.

Access your free e-book today.

Why Is Addressing Workplace Conflict Important?

Pretending conflict doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away. Ignoring issues can lead to missed deadlines, festering resentment, and unsuccessful initiatives.

Yet, according to coaching and training firm Bravely , 53 percent of employees handle “toxic” situations by avoiding them. Worse still, averting a difficult conversation can cost an organization $7,500 and more than seven workdays.

That adds up quickly: American businesses lose $359 billion yearly due to the impact of unresolved conflict.

As a leader, you have a responsibility to foster healthy conflict resolution and create a safe, productive work environment for employees.

“Some rights, such as the right to safe working conditions or the right against sexual harassment, are fundamental to the employment relationship,” says Harvard Business School Professor Nien-hê Hsieh in the course Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “These rights are things that employees should be entitled to no matter what. They’re often written into the law, but even when they aren’t, they’re central to the ethical treatment of others, which involves respecting the inherent dignity and intrinsic worth of each individual.”

Effectively resolving disputes as they arise benefits your employees’ well-being and your company’s financial health. The first step is learning about five conflict resolution strategies at your disposal.

Related: How to Navigate Difficult Conversations with Employees

While there are several approaches to conflict, some can be more effective than others. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model —developed by Dr. Kenneth W. Thomas and Dr. Ralph H. Kilmann—outlines five strategies for conflict resolution:

• Accommodating
• Compromising
• Collaborating

These fall on a graph, with assertiveness on the y-axis and cooperativeness on the x-axis. In the Thomas-Kilmann model, “assertiveness” refers to the extent to which you try to reach your own goal, and “cooperativeness” is the extent to which you try to satisfy the other party’s goal.

Alternatively, you can think of these axis labels as the “importance of my goal” and the “importance of this relationship.” If your assertiveness is high, you aim to achieve your own goal. If your cooperativeness is high, you strive to help the other person reach theirs to maintain the relationship.

Here’s a breakdown of the five strategies and when to use each.

1. Avoiding

Avoiding is a strategy best suited for situations in which the relationship’s importance and goal are both low.

While you’re unlikely to encounter these scenarios at work, they may occur in daily life. For instance, imagine you’re on a public bus and the passenger next to you is loudly playing music. You’ll likely never bump into that person again, and your goal of a pleasant bus ride isn’t extremely pressing. Avoiding conflict by ignoring the music is a valid option.

In workplace conflicts—where your goals are typically important and you care about maintaining a lasting relationship with colleagues—avoidance can be detrimental.

Remember: Some situations require avoiding conflict, but you’re unlikely to encounter them in the workplace.

2. Competing

Competing is another strategy that, while not often suited for workplace conflict, can be useful in some situations.

This conflict style is for scenarios in which you place high importance on your goal and low importance on your relationships with others. It’s high in assertiveness and low in cooperation.

You may choose a competing style in a crisis. For instance, if someone is unconscious and people are arguing about what to do, asserting yourself and taking charge can help the person get medical attention quicker.

You can also use it when standing up for yourself and in instances where you feel unsafe. In those cases, asserting yourself and reaching safety is more critical than your relationships with others.

When using a competing style in situations where your relationships do matter (for instance, with a colleague), you risk impeding trust—along with collaboration, creativity, and productivity.

3. Accommodating

The third conflict resolution strategy is accommodation, in which you acquiesce to the other party’s needs. Use accommodating in instances where the relationship matters more than your goal.

For example, if you pitch an idea for a future project in a meeting, and one of your colleagues says they believe it will have a negative impact, you could resolve the conflict by rescinding your original thought.

This is useful if the other person is angry or hostile or you don’t have a strong opinion on the matter. It immediately deescalates conflict by removing your goal from the equation.

While accommodation has its place within organizational settings, question whether you use it to avoid conflict. If someone disagrees with you, simply acquiescing can snuff out opportunities for innovation and creative problem-solving .

As a leader, notice whether your employees frequently fall back on accommodation. If the setting is safe, encouraging healthy debate can lead to greater collaboration.

Related: How to Create a Culture of Ethics and Accountability in the Workplace

4. Compromising

Compromising is a conflict resolution strategy in which you and the other party willingly forfeit some of your needs to reach an agreement. It’s known as a “lose-lose” strategy, since neither of you achieve your full goal.

This strategy works well when your care for your goal and the relationship are both moderate. You value the relationship, but not so much that you abandon your goal, like in accommodation.

For example, maybe you and a peer express interest in leading an upcoming project. You could compromise by co-leading it or deciding one of you leads this one and the other the next one.

Compromising requires big-picture thinking and swallowing your pride, knowing you won’t get all your needs fulfilled. The benefits are that you and the other party value your relationship and make sacrifices to reach a mutually beneficial resolution.

5. Collaborating

Where compromise is a lose-lose strategy, collaboration is a win-win. In instances of collaboration, your goal and the relationship are equally important, motivating both you and the other party to work together to find an outcome that meets all needs.

An example of a situation where collaboration is necessary is if one of your employees isn’t performing well in their role—to the point that they’re negatively impacting the business. While maintaining a strong, positive relationship is important, so is finding a solution to their poor performance. Framing the conflict as a collaboration can open doors to help each other discover its cause and what you can do to improve performance and the business’s health.

Collaboration is ideal for most workplace conflicts. Goals are important, but so is maintaining positive relationships with co-workers. Promote collaboration whenever possible to find creative solutions to problems . If you can’t generate a win-win idea, you can always fall back on compromise.

Considering Your Responsibilities as a Leader

As a leader, not only must you address your own conflicts but help your employees work through theirs. When doing so, remember your responsibilities to your employees—whether ethical, legal, or economic.

Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability groups your ethical responsibilities to employees into five categories:

• Well-being: What’s ultimately good for the person
• Rights: Entitlement to receive certain treatment
• Duties: A moral obligation to behave in a specific way
• Best practices: Aspirational standards not required by law or cultural norms
• Fairness: Impartial and just treatment

In the course, Hsieh outlines three types of fairness you can use when helping employees solve conflicts:

• Legitimate expectations: Employees reasonably expect certain practices or behaviors to continue based on experiences with the organization and explicit promises.
• Procedural fairness: Managers must resolve issues impartially and consistently.
• Distributive fairness: Your company equitably allocates opportunities, benefits, and burdens.

Particularly with procedural fairness, ensure you don’t take sides when mediating conflict. Treat both parties equally, allowing them time to speak and share their perspectives. Guide your team toward collaboration or compromise, and work toward a solution that achieves the goal while maintaining—and even strengthening—relationships.

Are you interested in learning how to navigate difficult decisions as a leader? Explore Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability —one of our online leadership and management courses —and download our free guide to becoming a more effective leader.

About the Author

9.2 Conflict Management Strategies

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Compare and contrast the five styles of conflict management.
• Describe the four steps in the STLC conflict model.

Would you describe yourself as someone who prefers to avoid conflict? Do you like to get your way? Are you good at working with someone to reach a solution that is mutually beneficial? Odds are that you have been in situations where you could answer yes to each of these questions, which underscores the important role context plays in conflict and conflict management styles in particular. The way we view and deal with conflict is learned and contextual. Research does show that there is intergenerational transmission of traits related to conflict management. As children, we test out different conflict resolution styles we observe in our families with our parents and siblings. Later, as we enter adolescence and begin developing platonic and romantic relationships outside the family, we begin testing what we’ve learned from our parents in other settings. If a child has observed and used negative conflict management styles with siblings or parents, he or she is likely to exhibit those behaviors with non–family members (Reese-Weber & Bartle-Haring, 1998).

There has been much research done on different types of conflict management styles , which are communication strategies that attempt to avoid, address, or resolve a conflict. Keep in mind that we don’t always consciously choose a style. We may instead be caught up in emotion and become reactionary. The strategies for more effectively managing conflict that will be discussed later may allow you to slow down the reaction process, become more aware of it, and intervene in the process to improve your communication. A powerful tool to mitigate conflict is information exchange. Asking for more information before you react to a conflict-triggering event is a good way to add a buffer between the trigger and your reaction. This can be accomplished through the practice of perception checking that you learned about in chapter 6 on perception. Another key element is whether or not a communicator is oriented toward self-centered or other-centered goals. For example, if your goal is to “win” or make the other person “lose,” you show a high concern for self and a low concern for other. If your goal is to facilitate a “win/win” resolution or outcome, you show a high concern for self and other. In general, strategies that facilitate information exchange and include concern for mutual goals will be more successful at managing conflict (Sillars, 1980).

Five Styles of Conflict Management

The five strategies for managing conflict we will discuss are competing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating. Each of these conflict styles accounts for the concern we place on self versus other (Figure 9.4).

In order to better understand the elements of the five styles of conflict management, we will apply each to the follow scenario:

Rosa and D’Shaun have been partners for seventeen years. Rosa is growing frustrated because D’Shaun continues to give money to their teenage daughter, Casey, even though they decided to keep the teen on a fixed allowance to try to teach her more responsibility. While conflicts regarding money and child rearing are very common, we will see the numerous ways that Rosa and D’Shaun could address this problem.

The competing style indicates a high concern for self and a low concern for other. When we compete, we are striving to “win” the conflict, potentially at the expense or “loss” of the other person. One way we may gauge our win is by being granted or taking concessions from the other person. For example, if D’Shaun gives Casey extra money behind Rosa’s back, he is taking an indirect competitive route resulting in a “win” for him because he got his way. The competing style also involves the use of power, which can be noncoercive or coercive (Sillars, 1980). Noncoercive strategies include requesting and persuading. When requesting , we suggest the conflict partner change a behavior. Requesting doesn’t require a high level of information exchange. When we persuade , however, we give our conflict partner reasons to support our request or suggestion, meaning there is more information exchange, which may make persuading more effective than requesting. Rosa could try to persuade D’Shaun to stop giving Casey extra allowance money by bringing up their fixed budget or reminding him that they are saving for a summer vacation. Coercive strategies violate standard guidelines for ethical communication and may include aggressive communication directed at rousing your partner’s emotions through insults, profanity, and yelling, or through threats of punishment if you do not get your way. If Rosa is the primary income earner in the family, she could use that power to threaten to take D’Shaun’s ATM card away if he continues giving Casey money. In all these scenarios, the “win” that could result is only short term and can lead to conflict escalation. Interpersonal conflict is rarely isolated, meaning there can be ripple effects that connect the current conflict to previous and future conflicts. D’Shaun’s behind-the-scenes money giving or Rosa’s confiscation of the ATM card could lead to built-up negative emotions that could further test their relationship.

Competing has been linked to aggression, although the two are not always paired. If assertiveness does not work, there is a chance it could escalate to hostility. There is a pattern of verbal escalation: requests, demands, complaints, angry statements, threats, harassment, and verbal abuse (Johnson & Roloff, 2000). Aggressive communication can become patterned, which can create a volatile and hostile environment. The reality television show  The Bad Girls Club  is a prime example of a chronically hostile and aggressive environment. If you do a Google video search for clips from the show, you will see yelling, screaming, verbal threats, and some examples of physical violence. The producers of the show choose houseguests who have histories of aggression, and when the “bad girls” are placed in a house together, they fall into typical patterns, which creates dramatic television moments. Obviously, living in this type of volatile environment would create stressors in any relationship, so it’s important to monitor the use of competing as a conflict resolution strategy to ensure that it does not lapse into aggression.

The competing style of conflict management is not the same thing as having a competitive personality. Competition in relationships isn’t always negative, and people who enjoy engaging in competition may not always do so at the expense of another person’s goals. In fact, research has shown that some couples engage in competitive shared activities like sports or games to maintain and enrich their relationship (Dindia & Baxter, 1987). And although we may think that competitiveness is gendered, research has often shown that women are just as competitive as men (Messman & Mikesell, 2000).

The avoiding style of conflict management often indicates a low concern for self and a low concern for other, and no direct communication about the conflict takes place. However, as we will discuss later, in some cultures that emphasize group harmony over individual interests, and even in some situations in the United States, avoiding a conflict can indicate a high level of concern for the other. In general, avoiding doesn’t mean that there is no communication about the conflict. Remember,  you cannot not communicate . Even when we try to avoid conflict, we may intentionally or unintentionally give our feelings away through our verbal and nonverbal communication. Rosa’s sarcastic tone as she tells D’Shaun that he’s “Soooo good with money!” and his subsequent eye roll both bring the conflict to the surface without specifically addressing it. The avoiding style is either passive or indirect, meaning there is little information exchange, which may make this strategy less effective than others. We may decide to avoid conflict for many different reasons, some of which are better than others. If you view the conflict as having little importance to you, it may be better to ignore it. If the person you’re having conflict with will only be working in your office for a week, you may perceive a conflict to be temporary and choose to avoid it and hope that it will solve itself. If you are not emotionally invested in the conflict, you may be able to reframe your perspective and see the situation in a different way, therefore resolving the issue. In all these cases, avoiding doesn’t really require an investment of time, emotion, or communication skill, so there is not much at stake to lose.

Avoidance is not always an easy conflict management choice, because sometimes the person we have conflict with isn’t a temp in our office or a weekend houseguest. While it may be easy to tolerate a problem when you’re not personally invested in it or view it as temporary, when faced with a situation like Rosa and D’Shaun’s, avoidance would just make the problem worse. For example, avoidance could first manifest as changing the subject, then progress from avoiding the issue to avoiding the person altogether, to even ending the relationship.

Indirect strategies of hinting and joking also fall under the avoiding style. While these indirect avoidance strategies may lead to a buildup of frustration or even anger, they allow us to vent a little of our built-up steam and may make a conflict situation more bearable. When we hint, we drop clues that we hope our partner will find and piece together to see the problem and hopefully change, thereby solving the problem without any direct communication. For the most part, the person dropping the hints overestimates their partner’s detective abilities. For example, when Rosa leaves the bank statement on the kitchen table in hopes that D’Shaun will realize how much extra money he is giving Casey, D’Shaun may simply ignore it or even get irritated with Rosa for not putting the statement with all the other mail. We also overestimate our partner’s ability to decode the jokes we make about a conflict situation. It is more likely that the receiver of the jokes will think you’re genuinely trying to be funny or feel provoked or insulted than realize the conflict situation that you are referencing. So, more frustration may develop when the hints and jokes are not decoded, which often leads to a more extreme form of hinting/joking: passive-aggressive behavior.

Passive-aggressive behavior is a way of dealing with conflict in which one person indirectly communicates their negative thoughts or feelings through nonverbal behaviors, such as not completing a task. For example, Rosa may wait a few days to deposit money into the bank so D’Shaun can’t withdraw it to give to Casey, or D’Shaun may cancel plans for a romantic dinner because he feels like Rosa is questioning his responsibility with money. Although passive-aggressive behavior can feel rewarding in the moment, it is one of the most unproductive ways to deal with conflict. These behaviors may create additional conflicts and may lead to a cycle of passive-aggressiveness in which the other partner begins to exhibit these behaviors as well, while never actually addressing the conflict that originated the behavior. In most avoidance situations, both parties lose. However, as noted above, avoidance can be the most appropriate strategy in some situations—for example, when the conflict is temporary, when the stakes are low or there is little personal investment, or when there is the potential for violence or retaliation.

Accommodating

The accommodating conflict management style indicates a low concern for self and a high concern for other and is often viewed as passive or submissive, in that someone complies with or obliges another without providing personal input. The context for and motivation behind accommodating play an important role in whether or not it is an appropriate strategy. Accommodating can be appropriate when there is little chance that our own goals can be achieved, when we don’t have much to lose by accommodating, when we feel we are wrong, or when advocating for our own needs could negatively affect the relationship (Isenhart & Spangle, 2000). The occasional accommodation can be useful in maintaining a relationship—remember earlier we discussed putting another’s needs before your own as a way to achieve relational goals. For example, Rosa may say, “It’s OK that you gave Casey some extra money; she did have to spend more on gas this week since the prices went up.” However, being a team player can slip into being a pushover, which people generally do not appreciate. If Rosa keeps telling D’Shaun, “It’s OK this time,” they may find themselves short on spending money at the end of the month. At that point, Rosa and D’Shaun’s conflict may escalate as they question each other’s motives, or the conflict may spread if they direct their frustration at Casey and blame it on her irresponsibility.

Research has shown that the accommodating style is more likely to occur when there are time restraints and less likely to occur when someone does not want to appear weak (Cai & Fink, 2002). If you’re standing outside the movie theatre and two movies are starting, you may say, “Let’s just have it your way,” so you don’t miss the beginning. If you’re a new manager at an electronics store and an employee wants to take Sunday off to watch a football game, you may say no to set an example for the other employees. As with avoiding, there are certain cultural influences we will discuss later that make accommodating a more effective strategy.

Compromising

The compromising style shows a moderate concern for self and other and may indicate that there is a low investment in the conflict and/or the relationship (Figure 9.5). Even though we often hear that the best way to handle a conflict is to compromise, the compromising style isn’t a win/win solution; it is a partial win/lose. In essence, when we compromise, we give up some or most of what we want. It’s true that the conflict gets resolved temporarily, but lingering thoughts of what you gave up could lead to a future conflict. Compromising may be a good strategy when there are time limitations or when prolonging a conflict may lead to relationship deterioration. Compromise may also be good when both parties have equal power or when other resolution strategies have not worked (Macintosh & Stevens, 2008).

A negative of compromising is that it may be used as an easy way out of a conflict. The compromising style is most effective when both parties find the solution agreeable. Rosa and D’Shaun could decide that Casey’s allowance does need to be increased and could each give ten more dollars a week by committing to taking their lunch to work twice a week instead of eating out. They are both giving up something, and if neither of them have a problem with taking their lunch to work, then the compromise was equitable. If the couple agrees that the twenty extra dollars a week should come out of D’Shaun’s golf budget, the compromise isn’t as equitable, and D’Shaun, although he agreed to the compromise, may end up with feelings of resentment. Wouldn’t it be better to both win?

Collaborating

The collaborating style involves a high degree of concern for self and other and usually indicates investment in the conflict situation and the relationship. Although the collaborating style takes the most work in terms of communication competence, it ultimately leads to a win/win situation in which neither party has to make concessions because a mutually beneficial solution is discovered or created. The obvious advantage is that both parties are satisfied, which could lead to positive problem solving in the future and strengthen the overall relationship. For example, Rosa and D’Shaun may agree that Casey’s allowance needs to be increased and may decide to give her twenty more dollars a week in exchange for her babysitting her little brother one night a week. In this case, they didn’t make the conflict personal but focused on the situation and came up with a solution that may end up saving them money. The disadvantage is that this style is often time consuming, and only one person may be willing to use this approach while the other person is eager to compete to meet their goals or willing to accommodate.

Here are some tips for collaborating and achieving a win/win outcome (Hargie, 2011):

• Do not view the conflict as a contest you are trying to win.
• Remain flexible and realize there are solutions yet to be discovered.
• Distinguish the people from the problem (don’t make it personal).
• Determine what the underlying needs are that are driving the other person’s demands (needs can still be met through different demands).
• Identify areas of common ground or shared interests that you can work from to develop solutions.
• Ask questions to allow them to clarify and to help you understand their perspective.
• Listen carefully and provide verbal and nonverbal feedback.

STLC Conflict Model

Cahn and Abigail (2014) created a very simple model when thinking about how we communicate during conflict. They called the model the STLC Conflict Model because it stands for stop, think, listen, and then communicate (Figure 9.6).

The first thing an individual needs to do when interacting with another person during conflict is to take the time to be present within the conflict itself. Too often, people engaged in a conflict say whatever enters their mind before they’ve really had a chance to process the message and think of the best strategies to use to send that message. Others end up talking past one another during a conflict because they simply are not paying attention to each other and the competing needs within the conflict. Communication problems often occur during conflict because people tend to react to conflict situations when they arise instead of being mindful and present during the conflict itself. For this reason, it’s always important to take a breath during a conflict and first stop.

Sometimes these “time outs” need to be physical. Maybe you need to leave the room and go for a brief walk to calm down, or maybe you just need to get a glass of water. Whatever you need to do, it’s important to take this break. This break helps you to be proactive rather than reactive (Cahn & Abigail, 2014).

Once you’ve stopped, you now have the ability to really think about what you are communicating. You want to think through the conflict itself. What is the conflict really about? Often people engage in conflicts about superficial items when there are truly much deeper issues that are being avoided. You also want to consider what possible causes led to the conflict and what possible courses of action you think are possible to conclude the conflict. Cahn and Abigail argue that there are four possible outcomes that can occur: do nothing, change yourself, change the other person, or change the situation.

First, you can simply sit back and avoid the conflict. Maybe you’re engaging in a conflict about politics with a family member, and this conflict is actually just going to make everyone mad. For this reason, you opt just to stop the conflict and change topics to avoid making people upset.

Second, we can change ourselves. Often, we are at fault and start conflicts. We may not even realize how our behavior caused the conflict until we take a step back and really analyze what is happening. When it comes to being at fault, it’s very important to admit that you’ve done wrong. Nothing is worse (and can stoke a conflict more) than when someone refuses to see their part in the conflict.

Third, we can attempt to change the other person. Let’s face it, changing someone else is easier said than done. Just ask your parents/guardians! All of our parents/guardians have attempted to change our behaviors at one point or another, and changing people is very hard. Even with the powers of punishment and reinforcement, a lot of the time change only lasts as long as the punishment or the reinforcer is active.

Lastly, we can just change the situation. Having a conflict with your roommates? Move out. Having a conflict with your boss? Find a new job. Having a conflict with a professor? Drop the course. Admittedly, changing the situation is not necessarily the first choice people should take when thinking about possibilities, but often it’s the best decision for long-term happiness. In essence, some conflicts will not be settled between people. When these conflicts arise, you can try and change yourself, hope the other person will change (they probably won’t, though), or just get out of it altogether.

The third step in the STLC model is listen. Humans are not always the best listeners. Listening is a skill. Unfortunately, during a conflict situation, this is a skill that is desperately needed and often forgotten. When we feel defensive during a conflict, our listening becomes spotty at best because we start to focus on ourselves and protecting ourselves instead of trying to be empathic and seeing the conflict through the other person’s eyes.

One mistake some people make is to think they’re listening, but in reality, they’re listening for flaws in the other person’s argument. We often use this type of selective listening as a way to devalue the other person’s stance. In essence, we will hear one small flaw with what the other person is saying and then use that flaw to demonstrate that obviously everything else must be wrong as well.

The goal of listening must be to suspend your judgment and really attempt to be present enough to accurately interpret the message being sent by the other person. When we listen in this highly empathic way, we are often able to see things from the other person’s point-of-view, which could help us come to a better-negotiated outcome in the long run.

Communicate

Lastly, but certainly not least, we communicate with the other person. Notice that Cahn and Abigail (2014) put communication as the last part of the STLC model because it’s the hardest one to do effectively during a conflict if the first three are not done correctly. When we communicate during a conflict, we must be hyper-aware of our nonverbal behavior (eye movement, gestures, posture, etc.). Nothing will kill a message faster than when it’s accompanied by bad nonverbal behavior. For example, rolling one’s eyes while another person is speaking is not an effective way to engage in conflict.

During a conflict, it’s important to be assertive and stand up for your ideas without becoming verbally aggressive. Conversely, you have to be open to someone else’s use of assertiveness as well without having to tolerate verbal aggression. We often end up using mediators to help call people on the carpet when they communicate in a fashion that is verbally aggressive or does not further the conflict itself. 

• Interpersonal conflict is an inevitable part of relationships that, although not always negative, can take an emotional toll on relational partners unless they develop skills and strategies for managing conflict.
• Although there is no absolute right or wrong way to handle a conflict, there are five predominant styles of conflict management, which are competing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating.
• In the STLC model of conflict the steps in conflict are: Stop, Think, Listen, and Communicate.

Discussion Questions

• Of the five conflict management strategies, is there one that you use more often than others? Why or why not? Do you think people are predisposed to one style over the others? Why or why not?
• Review the example of D’Shaun and Rosa. If you were in their situation, what do you think the best style to use would be and why?
• Discuss an example of a conflict you’ve experienced. How could you have used the STLC Conflict Model to help you resolve this conflict positively.

Remix/Revisions featured in this section

• Small editing revisions to tailor the content to the Psychology of Human Relations course.
• Remix of Employment Legislation (Introduction to Business – Lumen Learning) and EEO Best Practices , EEO Complaints (Human Resources Management – Lumen Learning) added to Introduction to Social Diversity in the Workplace (Organizational Behavior and Human Relations – Lumen Learning).
• Added images and provided links to locations of images and CC licenses.
• Added doi links to references to comply with APA 7 th edition formatting reference manual.

Attributions

CC Licensed Content, Original Modification, adaptation, and original content.  Provided by : Stevy Scarbrough. License : CC-BY-NC-SA

CC Licensed Content Shared Previously Communication in the Real World. Authored by: University of Minnesota. Located at: https://open.lib.umn.edu/communication/chapter/6-2-conflict-and-interpersonal-communication/ License: CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

CC Licensed Content Shared Previously Conflict Management Authored by: Laura Westmaas. Published by: Open Library Located at: https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/conflictmanagement/ License: CC BY 4.0

Cahn D. D., & Abigail, R. A. (2014). Managing conflict through communication (5th ed.). Pearson Education.

Cid, D., & Fink, E. (2010). Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists. Communication Monographs, 69 (1), 67-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750216536

Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for Maintaining and Repairing Marital Relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4 (2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407587042003

Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled Interpersonal Interaction: Research, Theory, and Practice . Routledge.

Isenhart, M. W., & Spangle, M. (2000). Collaborative Approaches to Resolving Conflict . Sage.

Johnson, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2000). Correlates of the perceived resolvability and relational consequences of serial arguing in dating relationships: Argumentative features and the use of coping strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17 (4-5), 676-686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500174011

Macintosh, G., & Stevens, C. (2008). Personality, motives, and conflict strategies in everyday service encounters. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19 (2), 112-131. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060810856067

Messman, S. J., & Mikesell, R. L. (2009). Competition and interpersonal conflict in dating relationships. Communication Reports, 13 (1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210009367720

Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. The Academy of Management Journal, 26 (2), 368-379. https://doi.org/10.2307/255985

Reese-Weber, M., & Bartle-Haring, S. (1998). Conflict resolution styles in family subsystems and adolescent romantic relationships.  Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27 (6), 735–752.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022861832406

Sillars, A. (1980). Attributions and communication in roommate conflicts. Communication Monographs, 47 (3), 180-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758009376031

Psychology of Human Relations Copyright © by Stevy Scarbrough is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Nice to meet you.

Enter your email to receive our weekly  G2 Tea newsletter  with the hottest marketing news, trends, and expert opinions.

Conflict Management Styles: What They Are and Why They Matter

May 9, 2024

by Holly Landis

In this post

5 types of conflict management styles, benefits of understanding conflict management styles, how to work with different conflict management styles.

We all have our own unique quirks, but wouldn’t everything be boring if we were the same? 

Working among people from different walks of life, whether that’s their background or skills, makes businesses stronger, but it can also cause a few problems when people don’t see eye to eye.

No one likes arguments, especially at work, but sometimes they’re unavoidable. Understanding how people, including yourself, approach difficult decisions can help keep conflicts to a minimum and result in a more productive outcome for everyone.

What are conflict management styles?

Conflict management styles are the specific ways people handle disagreements or disputes. Individuals will respond to conflict differently, so how these various approaches are managed is important to create a mutually beneficial outcome or resolution at the end of the disagreement.

For managers, understanding how team members react to disputes is an important part of leadership to ensure that everyone feels heard and supported, even when opinions differ. 

Sometimes, a disagreement can be resolved simply by changing how the information is delivered. Using various employee communications software can allow teams to share important details in a way that works best for those involved in the conversation.

There are five main types of conflict management styles that individuals fall under. While there may be some elements of overlap, most people have a primary communication style that determines how they respond to conflict.

1. Accommodating

Individuals with an accommodating conflict management style are more focused on the needs of others over themselves. Typical expressions of this would be allowing others to make decisions and lead the discussion or being easily persuaded to give in to different viewpoints. 

2. Avoiding

Conflict-avoidant people will usually try to end a disagreement as quickly as possible. While this may look like an accommodating conflict style, avoiding goes one step further by not wanting to begin the discussion at all. Continually rescheduling meetings around the issue or trying to delegate to someone else on the team is how this conflict management style often appears in the workplace.

3. Compromising

The compromising individual tries to find a middle ground and keep everyone happy. This can lead others in the team to feel dissatisfied because even though some of their ideas were successful, they weren’t fully accepted. However, for disputes that must come to some final conclusion, this conflict management style can be the most helpful in moving conversations forward.

4. Collaborating

Somewhat like compromising, collaborators want to find a solution that everyone is happy with. This is the more complete version of compromising, where every person involved is completely happy at the end. People with this conflict management style always look for a win-win scenario.

5. Competing

The competing conflict management style can come across as the most aggressive. People with this style are firm in their viewpoints and unwavering in disagreements — either you all agree to this person’s view, or the dispute will continue. 

It’s easy to think that any type of conflict is negative, but that’s not entirely true. Constructive discussion and debate are often necessary to move a project forward and work towards a more complete outcome as a group. 

Whether you’re a business leader looking to effectively manage a team or an employee looking to work better with your colleagues, some of the benefits of understanding conflict management styles are:

• Improved collaboration . When everyone on the team knows how best to communicate with each other, more open and honest discussions can happen. It also allows different perspectives to have equal weight in disputes, helping build an atmosphere of cooperation and teamwork.
• Enhanced problem-solving . Being able to communicate across conflict management styles is excellent critical thinking practice. And when this plays out, more creative ideas often emerge. By trying to find a good solution from different viewpoints, teams can identify the root causes of a problem and the most important elements needed for a positive outcome.
• Increased efficiency and productivity . Time arguing is time wasted. By approaching disputes with an understanding of how individuals will likely come to the table, everyone can stay focused on providing their own views as succinctly as possible and come to an agreement faster.

Depending on the mix of conflict management styles in a team, disputes can be fairly harmoniously resolved, or they could end up in a stalemate for days or weeks. That’s why it’s helpful to know how to approach every disagreement before it even begins.

Even for those with a competing conflict management style, keeping conversations in a calm and collected tone will make everyone involved feel more comfortable. This is especially important if a complex topic or contentious point is raised. 

While people may not agree with each other, remaining respectful of everyone’s viewpoint removes some of the stress and anxiety from the situation.

Don't take sides

For managers, it’s important not to side with one individual or another when points are being raised. This can create unnecessary hostility for those whose thoughts are being rejected. Acting as a mediator in these disagreements can bring them to an end sooner and help reach a final outcome more efficiently.

Find the source of conflict

Disputes can quickly stray from the real source of the problem when different conflict management styles are involved. Not only can this prolong arguments, but it can sometimes lead individuals to voice irrelevant opinions that could ultimately damage their relationships with their coworkers. This is particularly the case if team members frequently run up against each other and several issues are simmering under the surface.

Sticking to the facts and keeping both parties focused on the main issue and objectives is key to creating productive disagreements and finding satisfying resolutions. It may be necessary to bring others into the discussion, particularly if the dispute concerns a larger project involving multiple people. Not only will this keep the disagreement more focused on the pressing issue, but it can also help leaders get to the relevant details more quickly.

Give each person time to share

Each person involved in the dispute should have an equal amount of time to voice their opinions and provide their perspective on the situation. This may need to happen privately, between manager and employee, or this could be part of a group meeting where time is allocated to each team member.

Find a common goal

Ultimately, everyone should be working towards the same outcome. Reminding employees of this overarching goal can help bring the bigger picture back into view and resolve some disputes more quickly when smaller points don’t look so important. 

Disagreements don't have to be disappointing

Arguments are inevitable when you’re working in a diverse team. But remember that diversity is also what makes the team great. 

Finding ways to work well together in a respectful environment with open and honest communication is the key to ensuring that when disputes arise, those involved feel heard and a positive outcome can be reached.

Evaluate how well your team members are handling conflict and the impact this has on their work with performance management systems for tracking employee progress and development.

To disagree or not to disagree

Find the right way to connect with your team using employee communications tools that make sense for them.

Holly Landis is a freelance writer for G2. She also specializes in being a digital marketing consultant, focusing in on-page SEO, copy, and content writing. She works with SMEs and creative businesses that want to be more intentional with their digital strategies and grow organically on channels they own. As a Brit now living in the USA, you'll usually find her drinking copious amounts of tea in her cherished Anne Boleyn mug while watching endless reruns of Parks and Rec.

Recommended Articles

What Is Hospitality Management? (+Jobs, Skills, and Salary)

Hospitality manifests across America.

by Maddie Rehayem

Contributor Network

6 Managerial Soft Skills that Foster a Happy Workplace

In a recent survey, 44% of respondents stated that a boss has been the primary reason they...

by Aris Apostolopoulos

Resident Experience Management: What Property Managers Need to Know

In today’s technology-driven world, every industry is innovating itself to stay ahead of the...

by Peter Pietrzkiewicz

Never miss a post.

Subscribe to keep your fingers on the tech pulse.

By submitting this form, you are agreeing to receive marketing communications from G2.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology
• Personality
• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Conflict management.

• Patricia Elgoibar , Patricia Elgoibar University of Barcelona
• Martin Euwema Martin Euwema Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
•  and  Lourdes Munduate Lourdes Munduate University of Seville
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.5
• Published online: 28 June 2017

Conflicts are part of nature and certainly part of human relations, between individuals, as well as within and between groups. Conflicts occur in every domain of life: family, work, and society, local and global. Conflict management, therefore, is an essential competency for each person. People differ largely in their emotional and behavioral responses to conflict and need to learn how to behave effectively in different conflict situations. This requires a contingency approach, first assessing the conflict situation, and then choosing a strategy, matching the goals of the party. In most situations, fostering cooperative relations will be most beneficial; however, this is also most challenging. Therefore, constructive conflict management strategies, including trust building and methods of constructive controversy, are emphasized. Conflict management, however, is broader than the interaction of the conflicting parties. Third-party interventions are an essential element of constructive conflict management, particularly the assessment of which parties are intervening in what ways at what escalation stage.

• cooperation
• competition
• conflict behavior
• conglomerate conflict behavior
• constructive conflict management
• conflict resolution strategies

Definition of Conflict

Conflicts are part of nature, and certainly part of human relations. People experience conflict with other persons, in teams or in groups, as well as between larger entities, departments, organizations, communities, and countries. Conflicts appear at home, at work, and in our spare-time activities with friends, with people we love and with people we hate, as well as with our superiors and with our subordinates and coworkers. Parties need to accept conflicts as part of life dynamics and learn to deal with them effectively and efficiently. Conflict management refers to the way we manage incompatible actions with others, where others can be a person or a group.

Conflict is a component of interpersonal interactions; it is neither inevitable nor intrinsically bad, but it is commonplace (Coleman, Deutsch, & Marcus, 2014 ; Schellenberg, 1996 ). In the 20th century , Lewin ( 1935 ) concluded that an intrinsic state of tension motivates group members to move toward the accomplishment of their desired common goals. Later on, Parker Follett ( 1941 ) explored the constructive side of conflict and defined conflict as the appearance of difference, difference of opinions or difference of interests. Deutsch ( 1949 ) developed this line of thought and analyzed the relation between the way group members believe their goals are related and their interactions and relationships.

A common definition of conflict argues that there is a conflict between two (or more) parties (individuals or groups) if at least one of them is offended, or feels bothered by the other (Van de Vliert, 1997 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ). Traditionally, conflict has been defined as opposing interests involving scarce resources and goal divergence and frustration (Pondy, 1967 ). However, Deutsch ( 1973 ) defined conflict as incompatible activities: one person's actions interfere, obstruct, or in some way get in the way of another's action. Tjosvold, Wan, and Tang ( 2016 ) proposed that defining conflict as incompatible actions is a much stronger foundation than defining conflict as opposing interests, because conflicts also can occur when people have common goals (i.e., they may disagree about the best means to achieve their common goals). The key contribution of Deutsch’s ( 1973 ) proposal is that incompatible activities occur in both compatible and incompatible goal contexts. Whether the protagonists believe their goals are cooperative or competitive very much affects their expectations, interaction, and outcomes as they approach conflict (Tjosvold et al., 2016 ).

Characteristics of Conflict

Euwema and Giebels ( 2017 ) highlighted some key elements of conflict.

Conflict implies dependence and interdependence. Parties rely to some extent on the other parties to realize their goals (Kaufman, Elgoibar, & Borbely, 2016 ). This interdependence can be positive (a cooperative context), negative (a competitive context), or mixed. Positive interdependence is strongly related to cooperative conflict behaviors, while negative interdependence triggers competitive behaviors (Johnson & Johnson, 2005 ). Interdependence also reflects the power difference between parties. A short-term contractor on a low-paid job usually is much more dependent on the employer than vice versa. Many conflicts, however, can be seen as “mixed motive” situations.

Conflicts are mostly mixed motive situations because parties have simultaneous motives to cooperate and motives to compete. Parties are, on the one hand, dependent on each other to realize their goal, and, on the other hand, they are at the same time competitors. For example, two colleagues on a team are cooperating for the same team result; however, there is competition for the role as project leader. In a soccer team, the players have a team goal of working together to win, but they can be competing to be the top scorer. The mixed motive structure is very important to understand conflict dynamics. When conflicts arise, the competitive aspects become more salient, and the cooperative structure often is perceived less by parties. Interventions to solve conflict, therefore, are often related to these perceptions and the underlying structures.

Conflict is a psychological experience. Conflict is by definition a personal and subjective experience, as each individual can perceive and manage the same conflict in a different manner. Conflict doesn’t necessarily have an objective basis (Van de Vliert, 1997 ). It depends on the perception of the specific situation, and the perception is by definition subjective and personal.

Conflict concerns cognitive and affective tension. When someone perceives blocked goals and disagreements, he or she can also, although not necessarily, feel fear or anger. Many authors consider that conflict is emotionally charged (Nair, 2007 ; Pondy, 1967 ; Sinaceur, Adam, Van Kleef, & Galinky, 2013 ), although the emotion doesn’t need to be labeled necessarily as a negative emotion. Some people actually enjoy conflict. Emotional experiences in conflict are also scripted by cultural, historical, and personal influences (Lindner, 2014 ).

Conflict can be unidirectional. One party can feel frustrated or thwarted by the other while the second party is hardly aware of, and doesn’t perceive the same reality of, the conflict.

Conflict is a process. Conflict is a dynamic process that does not appear suddenly, but takes some time to develop and passes through several stages (Spaho, 2013 ). Conflict is the process resulting from the tension in interpersonal interactions or between team members because of real or perceived differences (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ; Thomas, 1992 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ).

Type of Conflict: Task, Process, and Relationship Conflict

Early conflict and organizational research concluded that conflict interferes with team performance and reduces satisfaction due to an increase in tension and distraction from the objective (Brown, 1983 ; Hackman & Morris, 1975 ; Pondy, 1967 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ). Jehn ( 1995 ) differentiated between task and relational conflict, and later also included process conflict (De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012 ). Task conflict refers to different opinions on content (Jehn & Mannix, 2001 ). Examples of task conflict are conflict about distribution of resources, about procedures and policies, and judgment and interpretation of facts (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ). Process conflict refers to how tasks should be accomplished (Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szulanski, 2008 ). Examples are disagreements about logistic and delegation issues (Jehn et al., 2008 ). Finally, relationship conflict refers to “interpersonal incompatibility” (Jehn, 1995 , p. 257). Examples of relationship conflict are conflict about personal taste, political preferences, values, and interpersonal style (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ). All three types of conflict—task, process, and personal (relational) conflicts—are usually disruptive, especially personal conflict, which is highly disruptive (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ; Jehn, 1995 , 1997 ). A review and meta-analysis by De Wit et al. ( 2012 ) showed that, under specific conditions, task conflict can be productive for teams. Moreover, conflict can wreck a team’s efforts to share information and reach a consensus (Amason & Schweiger, 1994 ). Therefore, research supporting the benefit of task and relationship conflict is not conclusive and each situation varies. What seems to be clear is that managing conflict efficiently to avoid escalation is a priority for teams.

Conflict Behavior, Conflict Management, and Conflict Resolution

Conflict behavior, conflict management, and conflict resolution are different layers of a conflict process and therefore should be distinguished. Conflict behavior is any behavioral response to the experience of frustration, while conflict management is the deliberate action to deal with conflictive situations, both to prevent or to escalate them. Also, conflict management is differentiated from conflict resolution, which is specific action aimed to end a conflict.

Conflict Behavior

Conflict behavior is the behavioral response to the experience of conflict (Van de Vliert et al., 1995 ). Conflict behavior is defined as one party’s reaction to the perception that one’s own and the other party’s current aspiration cannot be achieved simultaneously (Deutsch, 1973 ; Pruitt, 1981 ; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994 ). It is both what people experiencing conflict intend to do, as well as what they actually do (De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer, & Nauta, 2001 ; Van de Vliert, 1997 ). In conflict situations people often respond primarily, following their emotions, more or less conscientiously.

Many factors affect how people respond to the experience of conflict. Social psychology shows the processes are largely unconscious (Wilson, 2004 ). For example, how people respond to intimidating behavior by their supervisor might be primarily influenced by the context and individual perception, as well as previous relations with persons in authority, including parents and teachers (Gelfand & Brett, 2004 ; Van Kleef & Cote, 2007 ). These natural behavioral responses are also referred to as “conflict styles.” They are rooted in our personality and can differ in context. Some people will naturally respond by being friendly and accommodating, where others will start arguing or fighting (Barbuto, Phipps, & Xu, 2010 ; Kilmann & Thomas, 1977 ; Van Kleef & Cote, 2007 ).

Conflict behavior becomes more effective once we are more aware of our natural tendencies and are also able not to act upon them, and instead to show flexibility in behavioral approaches. This is where conflict behavior becomes conflict management. Therefore, one can be a naturally highly accommodating person who will spontaneously give in to others who make demands, but one will be more effective after learning to assess the situation at hand and to carefully decide on a response, which might be quite different from the natural or spontaneous reaction.

Dual-Concern Model

The dual-concern model holds that the way in which parties handle conflicts can de described and is determined by two concerns: concern for self (own interests) and concern for others (relational interests) (Blake & Mouton, 1964 ; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ; Rahim, 1983 ; Thomas, 1992 ; Van de Vliert, 1999 ) (see Figure 1 ). Usually, the two concerns define five different conflict behaviors: forcing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and problem solving or integrating. These behaviors are studied at the level of general personal conflict styles, closely connected to personality, as well as at the level of strategies and tactics (Euwema & Giebels, 2017 ).

The different conflict styles have been studied intensively, with three approaches. A normative approach, wherein integrating (also known as problem solving) is seen as the preferred behavior for conflict resolution; a contingency approach, exploring conditions under which each of the behaviors is most appropriate; and a conglomerate approach, focusing on a combination of the behaviors (see “ Conglomerate Conflict Behavior ”).

Figure 1. Dual-concern model.

In forcing, one party aims to achieve his or her goal by imposing a solution onto the other party. Concern for one’s own interests and own vision is what matters. There is little attention and care for the interests and needs of the other party, or the relationship with the other (Euwema & Giebels, 2017 ). This style is appropriate when the outcome is important for one party but trivial to the opponent, or when fast decision making is necessary. It becomes inappropriate when issues are complex, when both parties are equally powerful, when the outcome is not worth the effort for one party, or when there is enough time to make a collective decision. Moreover, forcing decisions can seriously damage a relationship and contribute to bullying in the workplace (Baillien, Bollen, Euwema, & De Witte, 2014 ); however, normative forcing, which is referring to rules and imposing them, can be effective (De Dreu, 2005 ). Note that some alternative terms that have been used for forcing in the literature are competitive , contending , or adversarial behavior .

With avoiding, one party aims to stay out of any confrontation with the other. This behavior prevents efforts to yield, to negotiate constructively, or to compete for one’s own gains. The conflict issue receives little attention, usually because the avoiding party thinks he or she won’t gain from entering into the conflict (Euwema & Giebels, 2017 ; Van de Vliert, 1997 ). Avoiding may be used when the benefits of resolving the conflict are not worth confronting the other party, especially when the problem is trivial or minor; when no good solutions are available for now; or when time is needed (Van Erp et al., 2011 ). An important motive for avoiding also is to prevent loss of face and to maintain the relationship. This is particularly true in collectivistic cultures, particularly in Asian societies (Oetzel et al., 2001 ). Avoiding is inappropriate when the issues are important to a party, when the parties cannot wait, or when immediate action is required (Rahim, 2002 ). Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim ( 1994 ) distinguished between long-term avoidance, which is a permanent move to leave the conflict, and short-term avoidance, defined as temporary inaction.

Accommodating

Accommodating is giving in or going along with the ideas, wishes, and needs of the other party. Accommodating usually is the result of a low concern for one’s own conflictive interests combined with a high concern for the interests and needs of the other party. Giving in often is related to a strong need for harmony and a sensitivity to the needs of the other. Accommodation is useful when a party is not familiar with the issues involved in the conflict, when the opponent is right, when the issue is much more important to the other party, and in order to build or maintain a long-term relationship, in exchange for future consideration when needed. Giving in also can be an educational strategy, giving space to the other to find out what the effect will be. Accommodating is less appropriate when the issue is of great concern, when accommodation creates frustration, or when accommodation reinforces dynamics of exploitation (Spaho, 2013 ). Note that an alternative term for this concept that can be found in the literature is yielding .

Compromising

Compromising involves searching for a middle ground, with an eye on both one’s own interest and the interest of the other. The premise is that both parties must find a middle ground where everyone receives equal consideration, meaning that each party makes some concession (Van de Vliert, 1997 ). Compromising is appropriate when a balance of forces exists and the goals of parties are mutually exclusive (Buddhodev, 2011 ). Compromise leads to a democratic solution; however, it may prevent arriving at a creative solution to the problem and a limited effort to increase resources before distributing them (Spaho, 2013 ).

Problem Solving or Integrating

Problem solving is a win–win strategy aimed at “optimizing rather than satisfying the parties” (Van de Vliert, 1997 , p. 36). Great value is attached to one’s own interests and vision, but also a lot of attention is given to the needs, ideas, and interests of the other. One looks for open and creative solutions that meet both interests. Problem solving or integrating is useful in dealing with complex issues, and it allows both parties to share skills, information, and other resources to redefine the problem and formulate alternative solutions. It is, however, inappropriate when the task is simple or trivial, and when there is no time. Also, it is more difficult to develop when the other party does not have experience in problem solving or when the parties are unconcerned about the outcomes (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ). Note that some alternative terms that can be found in the literature for this concept are cooperation and collaboration .

The dual-concern model is used as a contingency model, describing which conflict behaviors are used best under what conditions (Van de Vliert et al., 1997 ), and also as a normative model, promoting integrating behaviors as the most effective style, particularly when it comes to joined outcomes and long-term effectiveness. Forcing, in contrast, is often described as a noncooperative behavior, with risk of escalated and unilateral outcomes (Blake & Mouton, 1964 ; Burke, 1970 ; Deutsch, 1973 ; Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ; Rahim, 2010 ; Thomas, 1992 ). As a result, authors define forcing and integrating as two opposed behavioral approaches (Tjosvold, Morishima, & Belsheim, 1999 ). Following this model, many scholars during the 1970s and 1980s proposed that individuals use a single behavior in conflict, or that the behaviors should be seen as independent. Therefore, the antecedents and effects of different conflict behaviors are often analyzed separately (Tjosvold, 1997 ; Volkema & Bergmann, 2001 ). However, parties usually try to achieve personal outcomes, and try to reach mutual agreements by combining several behaviors in a conflict episode (Van de Vliert, 1997 ). This is the basic assumption of the conglomerate conflict behavior (CCB) theory (Van de Vliert, Euwema, & Huismans, 1995 ), which established that conflict behaviors are used in a compatible manner, sequentially or simultaneously.

Conglomerate Conflict Behavior (CCB)

In the dual-concern model, a contrast is made between forcing (contending with an adversary in a direct way) and integrating (reconciling the parties’ basic interests) as two opposed behavioral approaches (Tjosvold et al., 1999 ). However, the CCB framework assumes that individual reactions to conflict typically are complex and consist of multiple components of behavior (Van de Vliert, 1997 , Van de Vliert et al., 1995 ). The CCB theory covers the idea that behavioral components may occur simultaneously or sequentially and that the combination drives toward effectiveness (Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007 ; Medina & Benitez, 2011 ). The theory has been supported in studies analyzing conflict management effectiveness in different contexts, such as in managerial behavior (Munduate, Ganaza, Peiro, & Euwema, 1999 ), in military peacekeeping (Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007 ) and by worker representatives in organizations (Elgoibar, 2013 ).

The main reason that people combine different behaviors is because conflicts are often mixed-motive situations (Euwema, Van de Vliert, & Bakker, 2003 ; Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007 ; Walton & McKersie, 1965 ). Mixed-motive situations are described as situations that pose a conflict between securing immediate benefits through competition, and pursuing benefits for oneself and others through cooperation with other people (Komorita & Parks, 1995 ; Sheldon & Fishbach, 2011 ). Therefore, a person's behavior in a conflict episode is viewed as a combination of some of the five forms of conflict behaviors. An example of sequential complex behavior is to first put the demands clearly (forcing), followed by integrating (searching for mutual gains, and expanding the pie), and finally compromising, where distributive issues are dealt with in a fair way. An example of serial complexity can be found in multi-issue conflict, when for some issues conflict can be avoided, while for high priorities, demands are put on the table in a forcing way. Another CCB pattern is the conglomeration of accommodating and forcing. This pattern is sometimes referred to as “logrolling” (Van de Vliert, 1997 , p. 35), and it is a classic part of integrative strategies, to maximize the outcomes for both parties. Logrolling behavior consists of accommodating the high-concern issues of the other party and forcing one’s own high-concern issues. This approach is usually helpful in multi-issue trade negotiations; however, it requires openness of both parties to acknowledging key interests.

How to Explore Your Tendency in Conflict

The most famous and popular conflict behavior questionnaires are:

MODE (Management of Differences Exercise). MODE, developed in 1974 by Thomas and Killman, presents 30 choices between two options representing different conflict styles.

ROCI (Rahim's Organizational Conflict Inventory). The ROCI is a list of 28 items that measures the five styles of conflict behavior described.

Dutch Test of Conflict Handling. This list of 20 items measures the degree of preference for the five styles (Van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994 ; De Dreu et al., 2001 , 2005 ). It has been validated internationally.

Conflict management is deliberate action to deal with conflictive situations, either to prevent or to escalate them. Unlike conflict behavior, conflict management encompasses cognitive responses to conflict situations, which can vary from highly competitive to highly cooperative. Conflict management does not necessarily involve avoidance, reduction, or termination of conflict. It involves designing effective strategies to minimize the dysfunctions of conflict and to enhance the constructive functions of conflict in order to improve team and organizational effectiveness (Rahim, 2002 ).

Conflicts are not necessarily destructive (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008 ; Euwema, Munduate, Elgoibar, Pender, & Garcia, 2015 ), and research has shown that constructive conflict management is possible (Coleman, Deutsch, & Marcus, 2014 ). The benefits of conflict are much more likely to arise when conflicts are discussed openly, and when discussion skillfully promotes new ideas and generates creative insights and agreements (Coleman et al., 2014 ; De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008 ; Euwema et al., 2015 ; Tjosvold, Won, & Chen, 2014 ). To make a constructive experience from conflict, conflict needs to be managed effectively.

Deutsch’s classic theory of competition and cooperation describes the antecedents and consequences of parties’ cooperative or competitive orientations and allows insights into what can give rise to constructive or destructive conflict processes (Deutsch, 1973 , 2002 ). The core of the theory is the perceived interdependence of the parties, so that the extent that protagonists believe that their goals are cooperative (positively related) or competitive (negatively related) affects their interaction and thus the outcomes. Positive interdependence promotes openness, cooperative relations, and integrative problem solving. Perceived negative interdependence on the other hand, induces more distance and less openness, and promotes competitive behavior, resulting in distributive bargaining or win–lose outcomes (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ).

Whether the protagonists believe their goals are cooperative or competitive very much affects their expectations, interactions, and outcomes. If parties perceive that they can reach their goals only if the other party also reaches their goals, the goal interdependence is positively perceived and therefore parties will have higher concern for the other’s goals and manage the conflict cooperatively (De Dreu et al., 2001 ; Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). On the contrary, if one party perceives that they can reach their goals only if the other party fails to obtain their goals, the interdependence becomes negatively perceived and the approach to conflict becomes competitive (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Goals can also be independent; in that case, conflict can be avoided (the parties don’t need to obstruct each other’s goals to be successful). Therefore, how parties perceive their goals’ interdependence affects how they negotiate conflict and whether the conflict is constructively or destructively managed (Alper et al., 2000 ; Deutsch, 1973 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 ; Tjosvold, 2008 ).

Successfully managing conflict cooperatively requires intellectual, emotional, and relational capabilities in order to share information, to contribute to value creation, and to discuss differences constructively (Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). In contrast, a competitive-destructive process leads to material losses and dissatisfaction, worsening relations between parties, and negative psychological effects on at least one party—the loser of a win–lose context (Deutsch, 2014 ).

Deutsch’s theory proposes that emphasizing cooperative goals in conflict by demonstrating a commitment to pursue mutually beneficial solutions creates high-quality resolutions and relationships, while focusing on competitive interests by pursuing one’s own goals at the expense of the other’s escalates conflict, resulting in imposed solutions and suspicious relationships (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ).

In summary, Deutsch’s theory states that the context in which the conflict process is expressed drives parties toward either a cooperative or a competitive orientation in conflicts (Alper et al., 2000 ; Deutsch, 2006 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 ). In other words, a cooperative context is related to a cooperative conflict pattern, and a competitive context is related to a competitive conflict pattern. When parties have a cooperative orientation toward conflict, parties discuss their differences with the objective of clarifying them and attempting to find a solution that is satisfactory to both parties—both parties win (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992 ). On the contrary, in competition, there is usually a winner and a loser (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992 ) (see Table 1 ). In the CCB model, the patterns can include cooperative (i.e., integrating) and competitive (i.e. forcing) behavior; however, the cooperative pattern will be dominated by integrating while the competitive pattern will be dominated by forcing (Elgoibar, 2013 ).

Table 1. Characteristics of Cooperative and Competitive Climates

Source : Coleman, Deutsch, and Marcus ( 2014 ).

How to Manage Conflicts Constructively

The need for trust.

Trust is commonly defined as a belief or expectation about others’ benevolent motives during a social interaction (Holmes & Rempel, 1989 ; Rousseau et al., 1998 ). Mutual trust is one important antecedent as well as a consequence of cooperation in conflicts (Deutsch, 1983 ; Ferrin, Bligh, & Kohles, 2008 ). As Nahapiet and Ghoshal pointed out, “Trust lubricates cooperation, and cooperation itself breeds trust” ( 1998 , p.255). There is ample evidence that constructive conflict and trust are tightly and positively related (Hempel, Zhang, & Tjosvold, 2009 ; Bijlsma & Koopman, 2003 ; Lewicki, Tonlinson, & Gillespie, 2006 ).

Successful constructive conflict management requires maximal gathering and exchange of information in order to identify problems and areas of mutual concern, to search for alternatives, to assess their implications, and to achieve openness about preferences in selecting optimal solutions (Bacon & Blyton, 2007 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 ; Tjosvold, 1999 ). Trust gives parties the confidence to be open with each other, knowing that the shared information won’t be used against them (Zaheer & Zaheer, 2006 ). Various studies revealed that trust leads to constructive conglomerate behaviors and to more integrative outcomes in interpersonal and intergroup conflicts (Lewicki, Elgoibar, & Euwema, 2016 ; Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998 ; Ross & LaCroix, 1996 ).

How can trust be promoted? Developing trust is challenging (Gunia, Brett, & Nandkeolyar, 2014 ; Hempel et al., 2009 ). Numerous scholars have noted that trust is easier to destroy than to create (Hempel et al., 2009 ; Meyerson et al., 1996 ). There are two main reasons for this assertion. First, trust-breaking events are often more visible and noticeable than positive trust-building actions (Kramer, 1999 ). Second, trust-breaking events are judged to have a higher impact on trust judgments than positive events (Slovic, 1993 ). Furthermore, Slovic ( 1993 ) concluded that trust-breaking events are more credible than sources of good news. Thus, the general belief is that trust is easier to destroy than it is to build, and trust rebuilding may take even longer than it took to create the original level of trust (Lewicki et al., 2016 ).

However, there is room for optimism, and different strategies have been shown to promote trust. As held in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964 ), risk taking by one party in supporting the other party has been found to signal trust to the other party (Serva et al., 2005 ). Yet, fears of exploitation make trust in conflict management and negotiation scarce. Therefore, the use of trust-promoting strategies depends on the specific situation, and parties need practical guidance on how and when to manage conflict constructively by means of promoting mutual trust.

How does the possibility of trust development between parties depend on the conflict context? Based on this practical question, some strategies for trust development have been proposed (Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012 ; Gunia, Brett, & Nandkeolyar, 2012 ; Lewicki et al., 2016 ). In relationships where trust is likely, the following strategies can help: assume trustworthiness, prioritize your interests and give away a little information about them, engage in reciprocity (concessions), highlight similarities and spend time together, get to know your counterpart personally and try to be likable, behave consistently and predictably, and paraphrase your counterpart’s positions. In relationships where trust seems possible: emphasize common goals; focus on the subject, not on the people; look to the future and find a shared vision; mix questions and answers about interests and priorities—the fundamental elements of information sharing—with making and justifying offers; take a break; suggest another approach; call in a mediator; and forgive the other party’s mistakes. In relationships where trust is not possible, more cautious strategies can help: make multi-issue offers; think holistically about your counterpart’s interests; engage in reciprocity (concessions); express sympathy, apologize, or compliment your counterpart; and look for preference patterns in your counterpart’s offers and responses.

Constructive Controversy

C onstructive controversy is defined as the open-minded discussion of conflicting perspectives for mutual benefit, which occurs when protagonists express their opposing ideas that obstruct resolving the issues, at least temporarily (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Indicators of constructive controversy include listening carefully to each other’s opinion, trying to understand each other’s concerns, and using opposing views to understand the problem better. These skills are considered vitally important for developing and implementing cooperative problem-solving processes successfully and effectively.

Deutsch ( 2014 ) stated that there haven’t been many systematic discussions of the skills involved in constructive solutions to conflict, and he proposed three main types of skills for constructive conflict management:

Rapport-building skills are involved in establishing effective relationships between parties (such as breaking the ice; reducing fears, tensions, and suspicion; overcoming resistance to negotiation; and fostering realistic hope and optimism).

Cooperative conflict-resolution skills are concerned with developing and maintaining a cooperative conflict resolution process among the parties involved (such as identifying the type of conflict in which the parties are involved; reframing the issues so that conflict is perceived as a mutual problem to be resolved cooperatively; active listening and responsive communication; distinguishing between effective relationships between parties and positions; encouraging, supporting, and enhancing the parties; being alert to cultural differences and the possibilities of misunderstanding arising from them; and controlling anger).

Group process and decision-making skills are involved in developing a creative and productive process (such as monitoring progress toward group goals; eliciting, clarifying, coordinating, summarizing, and integrating the contributions of the various participants; and maintaining group cohesion).

Tjosvold et al. ( 2014 ) and Johnson et al. ( 2014 ) also elaborate on the skills needed for facilitating open-minded discussions and constructive controversy. They developed four mutually reinforcing strategies for managing conflict constructively:

Developing and expressing one’s own view. Parties need to know what each of the others wants and believes, and expressing one’s own needs, feelings, and ideas is essential to gaining that knowledge. By strengthening expression of their own positions, both parties can learn to investigate their position, present the best case they can for it, defend it vigorously, and try at the same time to refute opposing views. However, expressing one’s own position needs to be supplemented with an open-minded approach to the other’s position.

Questioning and understanding others’ views. Listening and understanding opposing views, as well as defending one’s own views, makes discussing conflicts more challenging but also more rewarding; therefore, the parties can point out weaknesses in each other’s arguments to encourage better development and expression of positions by finding more evidence and strengthening their reasoning.

Integrating and creating solutions. The creation of new alternatives lays the foundation for genuine agreements about a solution that both parties can accept and implement. However, protagonists may have to engage in repeated discussion to reach an agreement, or indeed they may be unable to create a solution that is mutually acceptable, and then they can both learn to become less adamant, to exchange views directly, and to show that they are trying to understand and integrate each other’s ideas so that all may benefit.

Agreeing to and implementing solutions. Parties can learn to seek the best reasoned judgment, instead of focusing on “winning”; to criticize ideas, not people; to listen and understand everyone’s position, even if they do not agree with it; to differentiate positions before trying to integrate them; and to change their minds when logically persuaded to do so.

Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution processes are aimed at ending a conflict. So, while conflict management can also include escalation, conflict resolution searches for a way of ending the conflict. The difference between resolution and management of conflict is more than semantic (Robbins, 1978 ). Conflict resolution means reduction, elimination, or termination of conflict.

To find a resolution, parties have to bring an extra piece of information, relate the information they have differently, or transform the issue, change the rules, change the actors or the structure, or bring in a third party (Vayrynen, 1991 ). The most popular conflict resolution processes are: negotiation, mediation, conflict coaching, and arbitration (Rahim, 2002 ). Conflict resolution can also be accomplished by ruling by authorities. Integration of the different techniques sequentially or simultaneously has been shown to support optimal conflict resolution (Jones, 2016 ).

Negotiation

Negotiation is a process in which the parties attempt to jointly create an agreement that resolves a conflict between them (Lewicki & Tomlinson, 2014 ). Walton and McKersie ( 1965 ) were the first to identify the two polar yet interdependent strategies known as distributive and integrative negotiation. Distributive negotiation means that activities are instrumental to the attainment of one party’s goals when they are in basic conflict with those of the other party. Integrative negotiation means that parties’ activities are oriented to find common or complementary interests and to solve problems confronting both parties. Other scholars also focused on the opposite tactical requirements of the two strategies, using a variety of terms, such as contending versus cooperating (Pruitt, 1981 ), claiming value versus creating value (Lax & Sebenius, 1987 ), and the difference between positions and interests (Fisher & Ury, 1981 ).

If a distributive strategy is pursued too vigorously, a negotiator may gain a greater share of gains, but of a smaller set of joint gains, or, worse, may generate an outcome in which both parties lose. However, if a negotiator pursues an integrative negotiation in a single-minded manner—being totally cooperative and giving freely accurate and credible information about his/her interests—he or she can be taken advantage of by the other party (Walton & McKersie, 1965 ). The different proposals that have been formulated to cope with these central dilemmas in negotiation are mainly based on a back-and-forth communication process between the parties, which is linked to the negotiators’ interpersonal skills (Brett, Shapiro, & Lytle, 1998 ; Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Rubin et al., 1994 ).

Mediation is process by which a third party facilitates constructive communication among disputants, including decision making, problem solving and negotiation, in order to reach a mutually acceptable agreement (Bollen, Munduate, & Euwema, 2016 ; Goldman, Cropanzano, Stein, & Benson, 2008 ; Moore, 2014 ). Using mediation in conflict resolution has been proven to prevent the negative consequences of conflict in the workplace (Bollen & Euwema, 2010 ; Bollen et al., 2016 ), in collective bargaining (Martinez-Pecino et al., 2008 ), in inter- and intragroup relations (Jones, 2016 ), and in interpersonal relations (Herrman, 2006 ). However, mediation is not a magic bullet and works better in conflicts that are moderate rather than extreme, when parties are motivated to resolve the conflict, and when parties have equal power, among other characteristics (Kressel, 2014 ).

Conflict Coaching

Conflict coaching is a new and rapidly growing process in the public as well as private sector (Brinkert, 2016 ). In this process, a conflict coach works with a party to accomplish three goals (Jones & Brinkert, 2008 ): (a) analysis and coherent understanding of the conflict, (b) identification of a future preferred direction, and (c) skills development to implement the preferred strategy. Therefore, a conflict coach is defined as a conflict expert who respects the other party’s self-determination and aims to promote the well-being of the parties involved. Giebels and Janssen ( 2005 ) found that, when outside help was called in, parties in conflict experienced fewer negative consequences in terms of individual well-being than people who did not ask for third-party help.

Sometimes, the leader of a team can act as conflict coach. A study by Romer and colleagues ( 2012 ) showed that a workplace leader’s problem-solving approach to conflicts increased employees’ perception of justice and their sense that they had a voice in their workplace, as well as reduced employees’ stress (De Reuver & Van Woerkom, 2010 ; Romer et al., 2012 ). In contrast, the direct expression of power in the form of forcing behavior can harm employees’ well-being (Peterson & Harvey, 2009 ). A forcing leader may become an additional party to the conflict (i.e., employees may turn against their leader; Romer et al, 2012 ).

Conflict coaching and mediation are different processes. First, in conflict coaching, only one party is involved in the process, while in mediation, the mediator helps all the parties in conflict to engage in constructive interaction. Second, conflict coaching focuses on direct skills instructions to the party (i.e., negotiation skills). In that, conflict coaching is also a leadership development tool (Romer et al., 2012 ). There is a growing tendency to integrate conflict coaching and workplace mediation, particularly in preparation for conflict resolution, because the coach can help the coached party to investigate options and weigh the advantages of the different options (Jones, 2016 ).

Arbitration

Arbitration is an institutionalized procedure in which a third party provides a final and binding or voluntary decision (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2014 ; Mohr & Spekman, 1994 ). Arbitration allows the parties to have control over the process, but not over the outcomes. Therefore, arbitration differs from negotiation, mediation, and conflict coaching, in which the parties decide the agreement themselves (Posthuma & Dworkin, 2000 ; Lewicki et al., 2014 ). In arbitration, the third party listens to the parties and decides the outcome. This procedure is used mainly in conflicts between organizations, in commercial disputes, and in collective labor conflicts (Beechey, 2000 ; Elkouri & Elkouri, 1995 ).

Decision Making by Authorities

The strategies of negotiation, mediation, conflict coaching, and arbitration have in common that the parties together decide about the conflict process, even when they agree to accept an arbitration. This is different from how authorities resolve conflict. Decision making by authorities varies from parents’ intervening in children’s fights to rulings by teachers, police officers, managers, complaint officers, ombudsmen, and judges. Here, often one party complains and the authority acts to intervene and end the conflict. This strategy is good for ending physical violence and misuse of power. However, the authorities’ decisive power is limited, and therefore in most situations authorities are strongly urged to first explore the potential for conflict resolution and reconciliation among the parties involved. The authority can act as an escalator for the process, or as a facilitator, and only in cases of immediate threat can intervene or rule as a last resort. Authorities who employ this strategy can improve the learning skills of the parties and can impose upon the parties an acceptance of responsibility, both for the conflict and for the ways to end it.

It is important to emphasize the natural and positive aspects of conflict management. Conflict occurs in all areas of organizations and private lives and its management is vital for their effectiveness. Through conflict, conventional thinking is challenged, threats and opportunities are identified, and new solutions are forged (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Therefore, when conflict occurs, it shouldn’t be avoided but should be managed constructively.

Further Reading

• Coleman, P. , Deutsch, M. , & Marcus, E. (2014). The handbook of conflict resolution . Theory and practice . San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
• De Dreu, C.K.W. , Evers, A. , Beersma, B. , Kluwer, E. , & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory—based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22 (6), 645–668.
• Elgoibar, P. , Euwema, M. , & Munduate, L. (2016). Trust building and constructive conflict management in industrial relations . Springer International.
• Lewicki, R. J. , McAllister, D. J. , & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationship and realities. Academy of Management Review , 23 , 438–458.
• Pruitt, D. G. & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement . New York: McGraw Hill.
• Van de Vliert, E. , Euwema, M.C. , & Huismans, S.E. (1995). Managing conflict with a subordinate or a superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 (2), 271–281.
• Wall, J. A. , & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management , 21 , 515–558.
• Alper, S. , Tjosvold, D. , & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology , 53 , 625–642.
• Amason, A. C. , & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict: Strategic decision making and organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict Management , 5 , 239–253.
• Bacon, N. , & Blyton, P. (2007). Conflict for mutual gains. Journal of Management Studies , 44 (5), 814–834.
• Baillien, E. , Bollen, K. , Euwema, M. , & De Witte, H. (2014). Conflicts and conflict management styles as precursors of workplace bullying: A two-wave longitudinal study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 23 (4), 511–524.
• Barbuto, J. E. , Phipps, K. A. , & Xu, Y. (2010). Testing relationships between personality, conflict styles and effectiveness. International Journal of Conflict Management , 21 (4), 434–447.
• Beechey, J. (2000) International commercial arbitration: A process under review and change. Dispute Resolution Journal , 55 (3), 32–36.
• Bijlsma, K. , & Koopman, P. (2003) Introduction: Trust within organizations. Personnel Review , 32 (5), 543–555.
• Blake, R. R. , & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial GRID . Houston: Gulf.
• Blau, E. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life . New York: Wiley.
• Bollen, K. , Euwema, M. , & Müller, P. (2010). Why Are Subordinates Less Satisfied with Mediation? The Role of Uncertainty. Negotiation Journal , 26 (4), 417–433.
• Bollen, K. , & Euwema, M. (2013). Workplace mediation: An underdeveloped research area. Negotiation Journal , 29 , 329–353.
• Bollen, K. , Munduate, L. , & Euwema, M. (2016). Advancing workplace mediation: Integrating theory and practice . Springer International.
• Brett, J. M. , Shapiro, D. L. , & Lytle, A. L. (1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal , 41 (4), 410–424.
• Brinkert, R. (2016). An appreciative approach to conflict: Mediation and conflict coaching. In K. Bollen , M. Euwema , & L. Munduate (Eds.), Advancing workplace mediation: Integrating theory and practice . Springer International.
• Brown, L. D. (1983). Managing Conflict at Organizational Interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Buddhodev, S. A. (2011). Conflict management: making life easier. The IUP Journal of Soft Skills , 5 (4), 31–43.
• Burke, R. J. (1970). Methods of resolving superior-subordinate conflict: The constructive use of subordinate differences and disagreements. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 5 , 393–411.
• Carnevale, P. J. , & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology , 43 , 531–582.
• Coleman, P. , Deutsch, M. , & Marcus, E. (2014). The handbook of conflict resolution. Theory and practice . San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
• De Dreu, C. K. (2005). Conflict and conflict management. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management , 11 , 1–4.
• De Dreu, C. K. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). Conflict in the workplace: Sources, functions, and dynamics across multiple levels of analysis . New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , Evers, A. , Beersma, B. , Kluwer, E. , & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22 (6), 645–668.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 (4), 741–749.
• De Reuver, R. , & Van Woerkom, M. (2010). Can conflict management be an antidote to subordinate absenteeism? Journal of Managerial Psychology , 25 (5), 479–494.
• De Wit, F. R. , Greer, L. L. , & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 97 (2), 360–390.
• Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations , 2 , 129–151.
• Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Deutsch, M. (1983). Conflict resolution: Theory and practice. Political Psychology , 4 , 43–453.
• Deutsch, M. (2002). Social psychology’s contributions to the study of conflict resolution. Negotiation Journal , 18 (4), 307–320.
• Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch , P. Coleman , & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution . San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
• Deutsch, M. (2014), Cooperation, competition and conflict. In P. Coleman , M. Deutsch , & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and Practice . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
• Deutsch, M. , & Marcus, E. (Eds.). (2014). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3d ed., pp. 817–848). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Elgoibar, P. (2013). Worker representatives' conflict behavior in Europe with a focus on Spain (PhD diss., University of Leuven, Belgium, and University of Seville, Spain).
• Elkouri, F. , & Elkouri, E. A. (1995). How arbitration works . ABA: Section of labour and employment law.
• Euwema, M. , & Giebels, E. (2017). Conflictmanagement en mediation . Noordhoff Uitgevers.
• Euwema, M. , Munduate, L. , Elgoibar, P. , Garcia, A. , & Pender, E. (2015). Promoting social dialogue in European organizations: Human resources management and constructive conflict behavior . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
• Euwema, M. C. , & Van Emmerik, I. J. H. (2007). Intercultural competencies and conglomerated conflict behavior in intercultural conflicts. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 31 , 427–441.
• Euwema, M. C. , Van de Vliert, E. , & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Substantive and relational effectiveness of organizational conflict behavior. International Journal of Conflict Management , 14 (2), 119–139.
• Ferrin, D. L. , Bligh, M. C. , & Kohles, J. C. (2008). It takes two to tango: An interdependence analysis of the spiraling of perceived trustworthiness and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 107 , 161–178.
• Fisher, R. , & Ury, W. L. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreements without giving in . New York: Penguin Books.
• Follett, M. P. (1941). Constructive conflict. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 30–49). New York: Harper & Row (Originally published in 1926.)
• Fulmer, C. A. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust? Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management , 38 (4), 1167–1230.
• Gelfand, M. J. , & Brett (2004). The handbook of negotiation and culture . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Giebels, E. , & Janssen, O. (2005). Conflict stress and reduced well-being at work: The buffering effect of third-party help. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 14 (2), 137–155.
• Goldman, B. M. , Cropanzano, R. , Stein, J. H. , Shapiro, D. L. , Thatcher, S. , & Ko, J. (2008). The role of ideology in mediated disputes at work: a justice perspective. International Journal of Conflict Management , 19 (3), 210–233.
• Gunia, B. , Brett, J. , & Nandkeolyar, A. K. (2012). In global negotiations, it’s all about trust. Harvard Business Review , December.
• Gunia, B. , Brett, J. , & Nandkeolyar, A. K. (2014). Trust me, I’m a negotiator. Diagnosing trust to negotiate effectively, globally. Organizational Dynamics , 43 (1), 27–36.
• Hackman, J. R. , & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration . In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press.
• Hempel, P. , Zhang, Z. , & Tjosvold, D. (2009). Conflict management between and within teams for trusting relationships and performance in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 30 , 41–65.
• Herrmann, M. S. (2006). Blackwell handbook of mediation: Bridging theory, research, and practice . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
• Holmes, J. G. , & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 187–220). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly , 40 (2), 256–282.
• Jehn, K. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly , 42 , 530–557.
• Jehn, K. , & Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management , 11 (1), 56–73.
• Jehn, K. A. , Greer, L. , Levine, S. , & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation , 17 , 465–495.
• Jehn, K. A. , & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A Longitudinal Study of Intragroup Conflict and Group Performance. Academy of Management Journal , 44 (2), 238–251.
• Johnson, D. V. , Johnson, R. T. , & Tjosvold, D. (2014). Constructive controversy: The value of intellectual opposition. In P. Coleman , M. Deutsch , & E. Marcus , The handbook of conflict resolution . San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
• Johnson, D. W. , & Johnson, R. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs , 131 (4), 285–358.
• Johnson, D. W. , & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research . Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
• Jones, T. S. (2016). Mediation and conflict coaching in organizational dispute systems. In K. Bollen , M. Euwema , & L. Munduate (Eds.), Advancing workplace mediation: Integrating theory and practice . Springer International.
• Jones, T. S. , & Brinkert, R. (2008). Conflict coaching: Conflict management strategies and skills for the individual . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Kaufman, S. , Elgoibar, P. , & Borbely, A. (2016). Context matters: Negotiators’ interdependence in public, labor and business disputes . International Association of Conflict Management Conference, New York, June 26–29, 2016.
• Kilmann, R. H. , & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: The “mode” instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 37 (2), 309–325.
• Komorita, S. S. , & Parks, C. D. (1995). Interpersonal relations: Mixed-motive interaction. Annual Review of Psychology , 46 (1), 183–207.
• Kramer, R. M. , & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging Perspectives, Enduring Questions. Annual Review of Psychology , 50 , 569–598.
• Kressel, K. (2006). Mediation revised. In M. Deutsch , P. T. Coleman , & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Kressel, K. (2014). The mediation of conflict: Context, cognition and practice. In P. Coleman , M. Deutsch , & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
• Lax, D. , & Sebenius, J. (1987). The manager as negotiator: Bargaining for cooperative and competitive gain . New York: Free Press.
• Lewicki, R. , Elgoibar, P. , & Euwema, M. (2016). The tree of trust: Building and repairing trust in organizations. In P. Elgoibar , M. Euwema , & L. Munduate (Eds.), Trust building and constructive conflict management in industrial relations . The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
• Lewicki, R. J. , Saunders, D. M. , & Barry, B. (2014). Essentials of negotiation . New York: McGraw Hill.
• Lewicki, R. J. , & Tomlinson, E. (2014). Trust, trust development and trust repair. In M. Deutsch , P. Coleman , & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (3d ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Lewicki, R. J. , Tomlinson, E. C. , & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management , 32 (6), 991–1022.
• Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality . New York: McGraw Hill.
• Lindner, E.G. (2014). Emotion and conflict: Why it is important to understand how emotions affect conflict and how conflict affects emotions. In P. Coleman , M. Deutsch , & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3d ed., pp. 817–848). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Lytle, A. L. , Brett, J. M. , & Shapiro, D. L. (1999). The strategic use of interests, rights, and power to resolve disputes. Negotiation Journal , 15 , 31–51.
• Martinez-Pecino, R. , Munduate, L. , Medina, F. , & Euwema, M. (2008). Effectiveness of mediation strategies in collective bargaining: Evidence from Spain. Industrial Relations , 47(3) , 480–495.
• Medina, F. J. , & Benitez, M. (2011). Effective behaviors to de-escalate organizational conflicts. Spanish Journal of Psychology , 14 (2), 789–797.
• Meyerson, D. , Weick, K. E. , & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Mohr, J. , & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal , 15 (2), 135–152.
• Moore, C. W. (2014). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
• Munduate, L. , Ganaza, J. , Peiro, J. M. , & Euwema, M. (1999). Patterns of styles in conflict management and effectiveness. International Journal of Conflict Management , 10 (1), 5–24.
• Nahapiet, J. , & Goshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review , 23 (2), 242–266.
• Nair, N. (2007). Towards understanding the role of emotions in conflict: A review and future directions. International Journal of Conflict Management , 19 (4), 359–381.
• Oetzel, J. , Ting-Toomey, S. , Masumoto, T. , Yokochi, Y. , Pan, X. , Takai, J. , & Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs , 68 (3), 235–258.
• Peterson, R. S. , & Harvey, S. (2009). Leadership and conflict: Using power to manage in groups for better rather than worse. In D. Tjosvold & B. Wisse (Eds.), Power and interdependence in organizations (pp. 281–298). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly , 12 , 296–320.
• Posthuma, R. A. , & Dworkin, J. B. (2000). A behavioral theory of arbitrator acceptability. International Journal of Conflict Management , 11 (3), 249–266.
• Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation behavior . New York: Academic Press.
• Pruitt, D. G. , & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement . New York: McGraw Hill.
• Rahim, M. A. (1983). Rahim organizational conflict inventories . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Rahim, M. A. (2002). Towards a theory of managing organizational conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management , 13 (3), 206–235.
• Rahim, M.A. (2010). Managing conflict in organizations . 4th ed. New Jersey: Transaction publishers.
• Robbins, S. P. (1978). “Conflict management” and “conflict resolution” are not synonymous terms. California Management Review , 21 (2), 67–75.
• Römer, M. , Rispens, S. , Giebels, E. , & Euwema, M. (2012). A helping hand? The moderating role of leaders' conflict management behavior on the conflict-stress relationship of employees. Negotiation Journal , 28 (3), 253–277.
• Ross, W. , & LaCroix, J. (1996). Multiple meanings of trust in negotiation theory and research: A literature review and integrative model. International Journal of Conflict Management , 7 (4), 314–360.
• Rousseau, D. M. , Sitkin, S. B. , Burt, R. S. , & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review , 23 (3), 393–404.
• Rubin, J. Z. , Pruitt , & Kim (1994). Models of conflict management. Journal of Social Issues , 50 , 33–45.
• Schellenberg, J. A. (1996). Conflict Resolution: Theory, Research, and Practice . State University of New York Press.
• Serva, M. A. , Fuller, M. A. , & Mayer, R. C. (2005). The reciprocal nature of trust: A longitudinal study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 26 , 625–648.
• Sheldon, O. J. , & Fishbach, A. (2011). Resisting the temptation to compete: Self-control promotes cooperation in mixed-motive interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 403–410.
• Sinaceur, M. , Adam, H. , Van Kleef, G. A. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). The advantages of being unpredictable: How emotional inconsistency extracts concessions in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 49 , 498–508.
• Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis , 13 , 675–682.
• Spaho, K. (2013). Organizational communication and conflict management. Journal of Contemporary Management Issues , 18 (1), 103–118.
• Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 13 (3), 265–274.
• Thomas, K. W. , & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument . Mountain View, CA: Xicom
• Tjosvold, D. (1997). Conflict within interdependence: Its value for productivity and individuality. In C. K.W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 23–37). London: SAGE.
• Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 47 (3), 285–342.
• Tjosvold, D. , Morishima, M. , & Belsheim, J. A. (1999). Complaint handling in the shop floor: Cooperative relationship and open-minded strategies. International Journal of Conflict Management , 10 , 45–68.
• Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: it depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 29 (1), 19–28.
• Tjosvold, D. , Wong, A. S. H. , & Chen, N. Y. F. (2014). Constructively managing conflicts in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour , 1 , 545–568.
• Tjosvold, D. , Wan, P. , & Tang, M. L. (2016). Trust and managing conflict: Partners in developing organizations. In P. Elgoibar , M. Euwema , & L. Munduate (Eds.), Building trust and conflict management in organizations . The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
• Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Complex interpersonal conflict behavior: Theoretical frontiers . Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
• Van de Vliert, E. , & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreeableness and activeness as components of conflict behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 66 (4), 674–687.
• Van de Vliert, E. , Euwema, M. C. , & Huismans, S. E. (1995). Managing conflict with a subordinate or a superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 (2), 271–281.
• Van de Vliert, E. , Nauta, A. , Euwema, M. C. , & Janssen, O. (1997). The effectiveness of mixing problem solving and forcing. In C. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 38–52). London: SAGE.
• Van de Vliert, E. , Nauta, A. , Giebels, E. , & Janssen, O. (1999). Constructive conflict at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 20 , 475–491.
• Van Erp, K. J. , Giebels, E. , van der Zee, K. I. , & van Duijn, M. A. (2011). Let it be: Expatriate couples’ adjustment and the upside of avoiding conflicts. Anxiety, Stress & Coping , 24 (5), 539–560.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , & Cote, S. (2007). Expressing anger in conflict: When it helps and when it hurts. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 (6), 1557–1569.
• Vayrynen, R. (1991). New Directions in Conflict Theory . London: SAGE.
• Volkema, R. J. , & Bergmann, T. J. (2001). Conflict styles as indicators of behavioral patterns in interpersonal conflicts. The Journal of Social Psychology , 135 (1), 5–15.
• Walton, R. E. , & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system . Cornell University Press.
• Wilson, T. D. (2004). Strangers to ourselves. Discovering the adaptive unconscious . Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
• Zaheer, S. , & Zaheer, A. (2006). Trust across borders. Journal of International Business Studies , 37 (1), 21–29.

Related Articles

• Work and Family
• Psychodynamic Psychotherapies
• Trust and Social Dilemmas

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 04 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|195.158.225.230]
• 195.158.225.230

Character limit 500 /500