problem solving conflict style

• Browse Topics
• Executive Committee
• Affiliated Faculty
• Harvard Negotiation Project
• Great Negotiator
• American Secretaries of State Project
• Awards, Grants, and Fellowships
• Negotiation Programs
• Mediation Programs
• One-Day Programs
• In-House Training and Custom Programs
• In-Person Programs
• Online Programs
• Advanced Materials Search
• Contact Information
• The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center Policies
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Negotiation Journal
• Harvard Negotiation Law Review
• Working Conference on AI, Technology, and Negotiation
• 40th Anniversary Symposium
• Free Reports and Program Guides

Free Videos

• Upcoming Events
• Past Events
• Event Series
• Our Mission
• Keyword Index

PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - https://www.pon.harvard.edu

Team-Building Strategies: Building a Winning Team for Your Organization

Discover how to build a winning team and boost your business negotiation results in this free special report, Team Building Strategies for Your Organization, from Harvard Law School.

Conflict-Management Styles: Pitfalls and Best Practices

Conflict-management styles can affect how disputes play out in organizations and beyond. research on conflict-management styles offers advice on managing such difficult situations..

By Katie Shonk — on March 21st, 2024 / Conflict Resolution

People approach conflict differently, depending on their innate tendencies, their life experiences, and the demands of the moment. Negotiation and conflict-management research reveals how our differing conflict-management styles mesh with best practices in conflict resolution.

A Model of Conflict-Management Styles

In 1974, Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann introduced a questionnaire, the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument , designed to measure people’s conflict styles. Based on people’s responses to pairs of statements, the instrument categorizes respondents into five different conflict styles:

• Competing. When adopting a competing style, people view interpersonal conflict resolution as win-lose games. Rather than recognizing the value of ensuring that each party walks away satisfied, disputants focus narrowly on claiming as much as they can for themselves. While value claiming is an important component of negotiation, a single-minded competitive orientation sacrifices value in the long run and perpetuates conflict.
• Avoiding. Because dealing with conflict directly can be highly uncomfortable, many of us prefer to avoid it. An avoidant conflict style might at first appear to be the opposite of a competitive style, but in fact, it can be similarly obstructive. When we avoid conflict, we often allow problems to grow worse.
• Accommodating. Because they defer so often to others, negotiators who adopt an accommodating style can seem agreeable and easygoing. But when people consistently put others’ needs first, they are liable to experience resentment that builds up over time. Accommodating negotiators typically will benefit from learning to express their needs and concerns.
• Compromising. Sometimes we try to resolve conflict by proposing seemingly equal compromises, such as meeting in the middle between two extreme positions, or by making a significant compromise just to move forward. Although a compromising conflict style can move a conversation forward, the solution is often unsatisfying and temporary because it doesn’t address the root issues at stake.
• Collaborating. Those who adopt a collaborative conflict-resolution style work to understand the deeper needs behind other parties’ demands and to express their own needs. They see value in working through strong emotions that come up, and they propose tradeoffs across issues that will give each side more of what they want.

Claim your FREE copy: The New Conflict Management

In our FREE special report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - The New Conflict Management: Effective Conflict Resolution Strategies to Avoid Litigation – renowned negotiation experts uncover unconventional approaches to conflict management that can turn adversaries into partners.

A collaborative negotiation style is usually the most effective style for managing conflict and fostering productive long-term relationships; however, different conflict-management styles can be effectively applied to different phases and types of conflict in management. Moreover, though we may have a predisposition toward a particular conflict style, we adopt different styles depending on the situation.

Competing is often useful when you’ve jointly created value through collaboration and now need to divide up resources. Accommodating may be the best immediate choice when your boss is unhappy about a project that went awry. Avoiding can be wise when someone seems volatile or when we don’t expect to deal with them again. And compromising can be a fine way of resolving a minor issue quickly.

Conflict-Management Styles : Lessons from Marriage Research

Can people with different conflict-management styles get along? In his book Why Marriages Succeed or Fail . . . and How You Can Make Yours Last (Simon & Schuster, 1995), psychologist John Gottman writes that healthy marriages tend to settle into three different styles of problem solving: validating (compromising often and working out problems to mutual satisfaction), conflict-avoidant (agreeing to disagree and rarely confronting differences directly), and volatile (frequently engaging in passionate disputes).

Perhaps surprisingly, Gottman’s research suggests that “all three styles are equally stable and bode equally well for the marriage’s future,” as he writes. Which style a couple leans toward isn’t important; what’s more important for lasting satisfaction is that both spouses adopt the same style.

Though Gottman’s research was conducted on married couples, the results suggest that disputants in the business world who have similar conflict-management styles may find they feel comfortable managing (or avoiding) conflict with each other.

When Conflict-Management Styles Are Complementary

By contrast, in the realm of negotiation, the results of a 2015 study published in the journal Negotiation and Conflict Management Research by Scott Wiltermuth, Larissa Z. Tiedens, and Margaret Neale found benefits when pairs of participants used one of two different negotiating styles.

They assigned study participants to engage in a negotiation simulation using either a dominant or submissive negotiating style. Those assigned to be dominant were told to express their preferences with confidence, use expansive body postures, and otherwise try to influence their counterpart. Those assigned to the submissive style were told to be cooperative, agreeable, and conflict avoidant.

Interestingly, pairs in which one party behaved dominantly and the other submissively achieved better results in the negotiation than pairs who were in the same condition (whether dominance, submission, or a control group). It seems the pairs of dominant/submissive negotiators benefited from their complementary communication style. A pattern in which one person stated her preferences directly and the other asked questions enabled the negotiators to claim the most value. By asking questions, the submissive negotiators assessed how to meet their own goals—and helped their dominant counterparts feel respected and competent in the process.

The research we’ve covered on negotiation and conflict-management styles suggests that opportunities to work through differences abound, regardless of our natural tendencies. Rather than spending a lot of time diagnosing each other’s conflict-management styles, strive for open collaboration that confronts difficult emotions and encourages joint problem solving.

What lessons about conflict-management styles have you learned in your own negotiation and conflict-resolution efforts?

Related Posts

• 3 Types of Conflict and How to Address Them
• Negotiation with Your Children: How to Resolve Family Conflicts
• What is Conflict Resolution, and How Does It Work?
• Conflict Styles and Bargaining Styles
• Value Conflict: What It Is and How to Resolve It

Click here to cancel reply.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Negotiation and Leadership

• Learn More about Negotiation and Leadership

NEGOTIATION MASTER CLASS

• Learn More about Harvard Negotiation Master Class

Negotiation Essentials Online

• Learn More about Negotiation Essentials Online

Beyond the Back Table: Working with People and Organizations to Get to Yes

• Learn More about Beyond the Back Table

Select Your Free Special Report

• Beyond the Back Table September 2024 and February 2025 Program Guide
• Negotiation and Leadership Fall 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation Essentials Online (NEO) Spring 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation Master Class May 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation and Leadership Spring 2024 Program Guide
• Make the Most of Online Negotiations
• Managing Multiparty Negotiations
• Getting the Deal Done
• Salary Negotiation: How to Negotiate Salary: Learn the Best Techniques to Help You Manage the Most Difficult Salary Negotiations and What You Need to Know When Asking for a Raise
• Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiation: Cross Cultural Communication Techniques and Negotiation Skills From International Business and Diplomacy

Teaching Negotiation Resource Center

• Teaching Materials and Publications

Stay Connected to PON

Preparing for negotiation.

Understanding how to arrange the meeting space is a key aspect of preparing for negotiation. In this video, Professor Guhan Subramanian discusses a real world example of how seating arrangements can influence a negotiator’s success. This discussion was held at the 3 day executive education workshop for senior executives at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Guhan Subramanian is the Professor of Law and Business at the Harvard Law School and Professor of Business Law at the Harvard Business School.

Articles & Insights

• Negotiation Examples: How Crisis Negotiators Use Text Messaging
• For Sellers, The Anchoring Effects of a Hidden Price Can Offer Advantages
• BATNA Examples—and What You Can Learn from Them
• Taylor Swift: Negotiation Mastermind?
• Power and Negotiation: Advice on First Offers
• 10 Great Examples of Negotiation in Business
• The Process of Business Negotiation
• Contingency Contracts in Business Negotiations
• Sales Negotiation Techniques
• M&A Negotiation Strategy: Missed Opportunities in Musk’s Twitter Deal
• Police Negotiation Techniques from the NYPD Crisis Negotiations Team
• Famous Negotiations Cases – NBA and the Power of Deadlines at the Bargaining Table
• Negotiating Change During the Covid-19 Pandemic
• AI Negotiation in the News
• Crisis Communication Examples: What’s So Funny?
• Bargaining in Bad Faith: Dealing with “False Negotiators”
• Managing Difficult Employees, and Those Who Just Seem Difficult
• How to Deal with Difficult Customers
• Negotiating with Difficult Personalities and “Dark” Personality Traits
• Consensus-Building Techniques
• Dealmaking Secrets from Henry Kissinger
• 7 Tips for Closing the Deal in Negotiations
• Writing the Negotiated Agreement
• The Winner’s Curse: Avoid This Common Trap in Auctions
• Understanding Exclusive Negotiation Periods in Business Negotiations
• Four Conflict Negotiation Strategies for Resolving Value-Based Disputes
• The Door in the Face Technique: Will It Backfire?
• Three Questions to Ask About the Dispute Resolution Process
• Negotiation Case Studies: Google’s Approach to Dispute Resolution
• What is Alternative Dispute Resolution?
• India’s Direct Approach to Conflict Resolution
• International Negotiations and Agenda Setting: Controlling the Flow of the Negotiation Process
• Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiations and the Importance of Communication in International Business Deals
• Political Negotiation: Negotiating with Bureaucrats
• Government Negotiations: The Brittney Griner Case
• The Contingency Theory of Leadership: A Focus on Fit
• Directive Leadership: When It Does—and Doesn’t—Work
• How an Authoritarian Leadership Style Blocks Effective Negotiation
• Paternalistic Leadership: Beyond Authoritarianism
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Leadership Styles: Uncovering Bias and Generating Mutual Gains
• Undecided on Your Dispute Resolution Process? Combine Mediation and Arbitration, Known as Med-Arb
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Training: Mediation Curriculum
• What Makes a Good Mediator?
• Why is Negotiation Important: Mediation in Transactional Negotiations
• The Mediation Process and Dispute Resolution
• Dear Negotiation Coach: Should You Say Thank You for Concessions in Negotiations?
• Persuasion Tactics in Negotiation: Playing Defense
• Negotiation in International Relations: Finding Common Ground
• Influence Tactics in Negotiation
• What Is Distributive Negotiation?
• Ethics and Negotiation: 5 Principles of Negotiation to Boost Your Bargaining Skills in Business Situations
• Negotiation Journal celebrates 40th anniversary, new publisher, and diamond open access in 2024
• 10 Negotiation Training Skills Every Organization Needs
• Trust in Negotiation: Does Gender Matter?
• Use a Negotiation Preparation Worksheet for Continuous Improvement
• Negotiating a Salary When Compensation Is Public
• How to Negotiate a Higher Salary after a Job Offer
• How to Negotiate Pay in an Interview
• How to Negotiate a Higher Salary
• Renegotiate Salary to Your Advantage
• Teaching with Multi-Round Simulations: Balancing Internal and External Negotiations
• Check Out Videos from the PON 40th Anniversary Symposium
• Camp Lemonnier: Negotiating a Lease Agreement for a Key Military Base in Africa
• New Great Negotiator Case and Video: Christiana Figueres, former UNFCCC Executive Secretary
• New Simulation: International Business Acquisition Negotiated Online
• Win-Win Negotiation: Managing Your Counterpart’s Satisfaction
• Win-Lose Negotiation Examples
• How to Negotiate Mutually Beneficial Noncompete Agreements
• What is a Win-Win Negotiation?
• How to Win at Win-Win Negotiation

PON Publications

• Negotiation Data Repository (NDR)
• New Frontiers, New Roleplays: Next Generation Teaching and Training
• Negotiating Transboundary Water Agreements
• Learning from Practice to Teach for Practice—Reflections From a Novel Training Series for International Climate Negotiators
• Insights From PON’s Great Negotiators and the American Secretaries of State Program
• Gender and Privilege in Negotiation

Remember Me This setting should only be used on your home or work computer.

Lost your password? Create a new password of your choice.

Copyright © 2024 Negotiation Daily. All rights reserved.

• 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
• 2023 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

• Top Courses
• Online Degrees
• Find your New Career
• Join for Free

Conflict Management: Definition, Strategies, and Styles

Learn how to manage disputes at home or work using various conflict management styles and strategies.

Conflict management is an umbrella term for the way we identify and handle conflicts fairly and efficiently. The goal is to minimize the potential negative impacts that can arise from disagreements and increase the odds of a positive outcome. 

At home or work, disagreements can be unpleasant, and not every dispute calls for the same response. Learn to choose the right conflict management style, and you'll be better able to respond constructively whenever disputes arise.  

Learn key approaches to conflict management

If you want to learn conflict management skills and approaches, consider enrolling in UC Irvine's Conflict Management Specialization . Start learning with Coursera Plus today with a free 7-day trial.

What is conflict management?

Conflict management refers to the way that you handle disagreements. On any given day, you may have to deal with a dispute between you and another individual, your family members, or fellow employees. 

Although there are many reasons people disagree, many conflicts revolve around: 

Personal values (real or perceived)

Perceptions 

Conflicting goals  

Power dynamics

Communication style

Build job-ready skills with a Coursera Plus subscription

• Get access to 7,000+ learning programs from world-class universities and companies, including Google, Yale, Salesforce, and more
• Try different courses and find your best fit at no additional cost
• Earn certificates for learning programs you complete
• A subscription price of $59/month, cancel anytime

5 conflict management styles

It's human to deal with conflict by defaulting to what's comfortable. According to University of Pittsburgh professors of management Ken Thomas and Ralph Kilmann, most people take one of two approaches to conflict management, assertiveness or cooperativeness [ 1 ]. From these approaches come five modes or styles of conflict management: 

1. Accommodating

An accommodating mode of conflict management tends to be high in cooperation but low in assertiveness. When you use this style, you resolve the disagreement by sacrificing your own needs and desires for those of the other party. 

This management style might benefit your work when conflicts are trivial and you need to move on quickly. At home, this style works when your relationship with your roommate, partner, or child is more important than being right. Although accommodation might be optimal for some conflicts, others require a more assertive style. 

2. Avoiding

When avoiding, you try to dodge or bypass a conflict. This style of managing conflicts is low in assertiveness and cooperativeness. Avoidance is unproductive for handling most disputes because it may leave the other party feeling like you don't care. Also, if left unresolved, some conflicts become much more troublesome. 

However, an avoiding management style works in situations where:

You need time to think through a disagreement.

You have more pressing problems to deal with first.

The risks of confronting a problem outweigh the benefits.

3. Collaborating

A collaborating conflict management style demands a high level of cooperation from all parties involved. Individuals in a dispute come together to find a respectful resolution that benefits everyone. Collaborating works best if you have plenty of time and are on the same power level as the other parties involved. If not, you may be better off choosing another style. 

4. Competing

When you use a competitive conflict management style (sometimes called 'forcing'), you put your own needs and desires over those of others. This style is high in assertiveness and low in cooperation. In other words, it's the opposite of accommodating. While you might think this style would never be acceptable, it's sometimes needed when you are in a higher position of power than other parties and need to resolve a dispute quickly. 

5. Compromising

Compromising demands moderate assertiveness and cooperation from all parties involved. With this type of resolution, everyone gets something they want or need. This style of managing conflict works well when time is limited. Because of time constraints, compromising isn't always as creative as collaborating, and some parties may come away less satisfied than others. 

Learn more about these conflict management approaches in this video from Rice University:

Tips for choosing a conflict management style

The key to successfully managing conflict is choosing the right style for each situation. For instance, it might make sense to use avoidance or accommodation to deal with minor issues, while critical disputes may call for a more assertive approach, like a competitive conflict management style. When you're wondering which method of conflict management to choose, ask yourself the following questions:

How important are your needs and wants?

What will happen if your needs and wants aren't met?

How much do you value the other person/people involved?

How much value do you place on the issue involved?

Have you thought through the consequences of using differing styles?

Do you have the time and energy to address the situation right now?

The answers to these questions can help you decide which style to pick in a particular situation based on what you've learned about the various conflict management styles. 

Tips and strategies for conflict management

Conflicts inevitably pop up when you spend time with other people, whether at work or home. However, when conflicts aren’t resolved, they can lead to various negative consequences. These include: 

Hurt feelings

Resentment and frustration

Loneliness and depression

Passive aggression and communication issues

Increased stress and stress-related health problems

Reduced productivity

Staff turnover

Conflict is a part of life. Knowing a few strategies for managing conflict can help keep your home or workplace healthy. Here are a few tips to keep in mind when conflict arises:

Acknowledge the problem.

If someone comes to you with a dispute that seems trivial to you, remember it may not be trivial to them. Actively listen to help the other person feel heard, then decide what to do about the situation. 

Gather the necessary information.

You can't resolve a conflict unless you've investigated all sides of the problem. Take the time you need to understand all the necessary information. This way, you'll choose the best conflict management style and find an optimal resolution. 

Set guidelines.

Whether discussing a conflict with a spouse or intervening for two employees, setting guidelines before you begin is essential. Participants should agree to speak calmly, listen, and try to understand the other person's point of view. Agree up front that if the guidelines aren't followed, the discussion will end and resume later. 

Keep emotion out of the discussion.

An angry outburst may end a conflict, but it's only temporary. Talk things out calmly to avoid having the dispute pop up again. 

Be decisive. 

Once you've discussed a dispute and evaluated the best approach, take action on the solution you've identified. Letting others in on your decision lets them know you care and are moving forward.  

Build conflict management skills today

Learn key conflict types and strategies to resolve them. Enroll in the Conflict Management Specialization from UC Irvine today to build your skills.

Article sources

Management Weekly. " Thomas Kilmann Conflict Model , https://managementweekly.org/thomas-kilmann-conflict-resolution-model/." Accessed March 13, 2024.

Keep reading

Coursera staff.

Editorial Team

Coursera’s editorial team is comprised of highly experienced professional editors, writers, and fact...

This content has been made available for informational purposes only. Learners are advised to conduct additional research to ensure that courses and other credentials pursued meet their personal, professional, and financial goals.

• 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 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

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

Can’t we all just get along? A guide to conflict management styles

Conflict is an unavoidable part of any workplace, as well as in any relationship. Whether you’re at odds with a coworker, your spouse, or your best friend, how you manage those conflicts makes all the difference. It’s an essential part of building strong personal relationships and maintaining healthy business relationships. On some levels, we each hold different conflict management styles that help inform how we react to conflict. At BetterUp, this is something we discuss in the employee onboarding process.

The way you manage conflicts at work can have a significant impact on the success or failure of your organization. Yet surprisingly little attention is devoted to this important topic in the literature of management. Learning how to manage conflicts in the workplace isn’t easy. This is especially true if you don’t know which management style will work best with your specific employee or situation.

What is conflict management?

Conflict management is the art of handling and resolving conflicts. It involves using effective communication to diffuse tension and reach an agreement that both solves the issue and leaves both parties feeling satisfied.

Not every disagreement or pushback falls under the insubordination umbrella . Conflicts can arise from any number of sources in the workplace, from a disagreement over a meeting agenda to personal animosity between two employees. Understanding the root of the conflict is necessary for effectively resolving it. 

What is the goal of conflict management?

The purpose of conflict management in the workplace is to avoid or manage conflict in the most productive way possible. Effective communication , decision-making, and problem-solving are all key components of conflict management. The style that works best for your team may not be the best for another. 

The first step to managing a conflict is understanding what kind of conflict you're dealing with. Understanding different types of conflicts will help you better understand how to approach each one.

There are two types of conflict — productive and unhealthy . Believe it or not, you actually want productive conflict on your team. When employees can disagree with one another in a respectful way, it’s a sign of high psychological safety . It boosts innovation, creativity, and problem-solving skills. Although productive conflict isn’t always easy, it's often necessary in order to come up with the best solutions. 

Unhealthy conflict is often characterized by anger, resentment, or aggression. This kind of conflict can poison relationships. Whereas productive conflicts stem from a healthy respect for one another, unhealthy conflicts come from frustration. One or more parties feel as if they’re not being heard or acknowledged. 

The intention of conflict management is to bring everyone to a working consensus. Now, this doesn’t mean that everyone will agree, or that challenges won’t arise in the future. What it means is that people can (together) find the best path to move forward, and leave the conversation feeling as if they’ve been heard and taken seriously. Depending on the situation, you may have to adjust your conflict management strategy to come to the best solution.

5 styles of conflict management

At some point in our lives we've learned from family members, friends, co-workers and others various methods of handling conflicts. These methods often fall into one of five styles (or approaches): accommodating , avoidance , compromising , collaborating , and competing . Each method of handling conflicts has its own pros and cons. The circumstances and intended outcome determine whether one (or more) of these approaches might be successful or appropriate for handling conflicts.

Accommodating

The accommodating style is the type of conflict management style most people are accustomed to. It’s generally the easiest way to go when looking for a good middle ground. This style is often characterized by mild confrontation and a willingness to give in or concede points. Employees with this style may be seen as passive, conflict-averse, and non-confrontational. 

The accommodating style can work when there are no clear winners in an argument. However, it should not be used when one person's needs are being ignored or marginalized. It is also not advisable for situations where one party is trying to take advantage of another by not speaking up for their own rights and interests . Unfortunately, an accommodating approach will likely escalate the conflict. It can allow the other party more room to push boundaries and make unreasonable demands.

The avoidant conflict management style is very different from the accommodating styles. It’s a passive approach where one avoids the situation, opting not to speak up. This can be problematic in that this style may not provide input or opinion. This could lead to a lack of understanding, or to the avoidant person not getting their needs met. 

It’s difficult for people who have a different conflict management style to understand this approach, since it is so foreign from their own. The avoidant conflict management style does not work when there are many people involved or when there are high emotions (like anger) present. If someone is feeling particularly angry or frustrated, the avoidant approach can leave them feeling dismissed and unheard. In this case, conflict management would involve addressing any underlying issues and emotions. This won’t happen if the parties involved try to avoid the situation altogether.

Compromising

The compromising conflict management style is useful when the issue isn’t a big one, or when the parties are willing to work together. If an issue needs to be resolved quickly, a compromise might get you to the fastest solution. 

Some cynics refer to compromise as “lose-lose,” since both parties generally have to give up something they want to reach an agreement. It's often ineffective when there are serious disagreements about how to resolve the problem. 

Collaborating

The collaborating style is most appropriate when there are many stakeholders. It can also be useful when there are complex and difficult problems or a lack of clarity around boundaries. However, it's not the best option when it's unclear who the decision maker is, there's a need for quick decisions, or when people have very strong opinions and want to get their way. The collaborating conflict management style provides a safe environment for all parties involved in order to work together to achieve the goal. A strength of this style is accomplishing that while still maintaining each person’s individual identity and needs.

The competing conflict management style is fairly straightforward: the goal is to win. However, winning can look very different depending on the parties involved and what’s at stake.

In the workplace, a competing style might arise between two employees vying for one promotion . However, it might also come up when the stakes are less clear. For example, a new manager that feels the need to assert authority might unconsciously find themselves in competition with their team.

Tips for managers

Conflict management skills are important, but so are strong team members who work together using these techniques. A leader needs a high degree of emotional intelligence to navigate disagreements between conflicting parties.

If you want your team to be productive and happy, here are a few ideas to help them avoid unhealthy conflicts: 

1. Be clear about your expectations 

A lack of clarity can create room for misunderstandings and disagreements. You can help minimize the potential for this by outlining your expectations clearly from the start. Clear communication can help minimize conflict in the workplace .

2. Be open about feedback 

When teams have a culture of feedback, there’s a free-flowing exchange of ideas. Team members are less likely to feel threatened when someone disagrees with them. Be open with your team about feedback. Make it a regular part of your communication, and encourage them to share feedback with you as well .

3. Don't take things personally

Remember that work is work. Everyone is trying to get something done, and everyone has factors outside of work that may affect how they show up. If someone comes off the wrong way, assume that it has nothing to do with you. Try not to get defensive or combative. If you need to, take time to calm yourself down before you respond.

4. Get a coach

There are a lot of benefits that come from working with a coach . But as much as it impacts individuals, the benefits of a strong coaching culture can ripple out to the team. BetterUp’s coaching has been shown to reduce conflict within teams by 24%. Not only that, but teams benefit from improved communication and a stronger sense of connection at work.

5. Don’t play favorites

When negotiating a conflict, it’s important to be impartial — even if you feel one person is right. A good manager will go to bat for their entire team. If you start playing favorites, you’ll inevitably create discontent among the people on your team.

6. Invest time in learning to manage conflict

You don’t have to learn conflict resolution skills on the fly. Consider investing in formal training in communication, mediation, or dispute resolution. Every manager can benefit from working on these skills, either in group training or with a coach.

7. Know when to stay out of it

Sometimes, “hands off” is the best approach. If your team members are experiencing a minor conflict, it might not be a bad idea to let them talk it out themselves. A manager getting involved in every conversation can actually escalate tensions or make things worse. On the other hand, allowing them to work it out might help them develop a better rapport in the future.

When to escalate a workplace conflict to HR

Just as it’s important to know when to stay out of it, it's important for managers to know when to escalate a conflict. Some conflict situations are best handled by human resources. There may also be certain procedural or legal steps to take.

Here are some situations that absolutely should be brought to HR:

- When someone is being mistreated or bullied at work 

- When performance management is being discussed 

- When workplace bullying or harassment is occurring (or other signs of a hostile work environment )

- When there’s a potential instance of discrimination

- When there's an interpersonal conflict between two employees that involves repeated conflict, yelling, or threats

- When one employee needs to be coached on how to speak more respectfully to others 

- If the person has come to you with a complaint about another employee

Human resources professionals have extensive experience with these kinds of situations and can help intervene. They may be able to diffuse the situation or take the appropriate actions. You shouldn’t hesitate to reach out.

Final thoughts

Effective conflict management in the workplace can be challenging, but it's possible to get better at it. Understanding the different conflict management styles of others can help you learn to navigate different situations. 

No matter which style you use, you need to balance technique with emotional intelligence and assertiveness. You need to be able to integrate viewpoints, communicate effectively and calmly, and listen actively. Most importantly, help your team feel heard and respected. Let your team know that you’re on their side, and that the goal is to solve problems together.

Lead with confidence and authenticity

Develop your leadership and strategic management skills with the help of an expert Coach.

Allaya Cooks-Campbell

With over 15 years of content experience, Allaya Cooks Campbell has written for outlets such as ScaryMommy, HRzone, and HuffPost. She holds a B.A. in Psychology and is a certified yoga instructor as well as a certified Integrative Wellness & Life Coach. Allaya is passionate about whole-person wellness, yoga, and mental health.

Guide to conflict resolution skills — plus real world examples

How to embrace constructive conflict, put team conflict to work with these constructive tips, leading people as people, a conversation with cynt marshall, ceo of the dallas mavericks, reflections on shift: cracking the code to people transformation in the workplace, and beyond, outsmarting the innovator's bias: where future-mindedness and innovation meet, uplift 2020: ushering in a new era of employee experience, the key mindsets sales leaders need to unlock success: q&a with brad mccracken, global vp of sales at betterup, developing agility and resilience in the core of your organization, similar articles, how to disagree at work without being obnoxious, stress management at work, the only resource you’ll ever need, benefits of humor in the workplace (we found at least 10), productive conflict isn’t bad, especially in the workplace, what to do when things get tense 7 tips to handle workplace conflict, we need to talk (about communication styles in the workplace), stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care™
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Life Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

• 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: 24 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|109.248.223.228]
• 109.248.223.228

Character limit 500 /500

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

FlexWorld 2024—the largest coworking tech conference in the 🌎 May 21, 8AM EDT. Save your seat

Mastering The Collaborating Conflict Style In 2024 [Easy Guide]

Table of contents:.

In the ever-evolving landscape of hybrid and remote work environments, conflicts among team members are inevitable. To minimize negativity and cultivate a healthy and proactive culture, effective conflict management is absolutely crucial.

Today’s distributed workforces demand a more dynamic approach to conflict resolution than the one-size-fits-all solutions used in the past.

Enter: the collaborating conflict style.

This article will cover the definition, key principles, common misconceptions, and pros and cons of the collaborating conflict style.

Let’s jump in.

Quick Summary:

• Collaborative conflict resolution encourages teams to work through disagreements through empathy, listening, and mutually beneficial solutions.
• Powerful conflict management styles are more necessary than ever, with more widely dispersed teams and less face-to-face interaction.
• Collaboration, unlike compromise, doesn’t focus on both sides making sacrifices. Instead, both parties come up with mutually beneficial solutions.

What Is the Collaborating Conflict Style?

The collaborating conflict style is a powerful approach to conflict resolution built on cooperation, open communication, and finding win-win outcomes.

This conflict style aims to:

• Preserve relationships
• Build trust
• Promote long-term positive change

At its core, collaborative conflict resolution is about going beyond surface-level compromises and finding solutions that satisfy the needs and interests of everyone involved.

It involves fostering an inclusive, participative environment that collectively tackles the conflict’s root causes. It also requires good collaborative communication skills and great mastery of asynchronous communication .

According to Lesley University president and conflict management expert, Jeff Weiss, encouraging collaboration amongst team members can give leaders a better understanding of the motives and interests at the root of a conflict, so they can make more informed decisions.

And that’s how collaborating conflict style views these conflicts. Rather than battles won or lost, they’re an opportunity to grow, learn, and connect.

The Principles of Collaborating Conflict Style

The collaborating style relies on several key principles for its use. We’ll discuss a few of them below.

Ensuring Open Communication

Open communication is the cornerstone of the collaborating conflict style.

And unfortunately, hybrid and remote work can make open communication more challenging. Without face-to-face interactions, the risk of miscommunication and misunderstandings increases.

Nonetheless, hybrid teams can leverage digital tools to prioritize continuous communication and opportunities for feedback.

To communicate well, teams must practice the following:

• Empathic listening
• Clear, constructive dialogue
• A respectful exchange of opinions

Finding Common Ground

Finding a middle ground is another fundamental principle of collaborating conflict style.

Hybrid and remote work team members who are physically dispersed and have varying perspectives and experiences may find it difficult to establish common ground.

However, the absence of physical proximity can also encourage a broader exploration of ideas and perspectives.

To find common ground, teams should cultivate the following:

• Shared interests and goals
• Clear expectations and common objectives
• A forward-looking approach

We have an extensive guide on dealing with difficult situations at work that would further help.

Creating a Culture of Trust

The absence of non-verbal cues and personal connections can make it more difficult to establish trust among team members.

However, embracing diverse perspectives is crucial in a hybrid/remote setup, as it brings together individuals with different backgrounds and experiences.

You can establish a culture of trust by:

• Embracing multiple perspectives:
• Ensuring a safe and non-judgmental environment
• Modeling collaborative conflict resolution

How Does Collaboration Differ from Compromise?

In both collaboration and compromise, the goal is to resolve conflict. However, their approaches to doing this are quite different. In collaboration , parties seek mutually beneficial solutions. They look for true win-win possibilities.

In a compromise , one or both parties must make a sacrifice to achieve a resolution.

Compromising is certainly necessary sometimes. But it can also open the door to only partial satisfaction — or even resentment.

For example, if two employees disagreed on a major decision, they’d have to meet in the middle with a compromise. But if they collaborated, they could work together to resolve the situation.

The Pros of Collaborative Conflict Resolution

Collaborative conflict management has several benefits for both employees and the work environment as a whole. Here are three of the best ones:

Better Problem-Solving

The collaborating conflict style leads to constructive decision-making. Encouraging active engagement and open dialogue helps others think outside of the box and explore innovative paths forward.

Collaborative problem-solving helps address not only the surface-level symptoms but also the underlying root causes of conflicts, leading to more effective and sustainable resolutions.

Better Relationships

Another significant advantage of collaborative conflict management is its ability to strengthen relationships among team members.

Emphasizing trust-building, open communication, and empathizing with each other’s perspectives goes beyond resolving conflicts to facilitate deeper understandings of each other. This leads to better interpersonal connections.

Higher Morale

When a workplace conflict is addressed in a collaborative manner, employees feel heard, valued, and empowered.

Their opinions and perspectives are respected and considered during the conflict resolution process, boosting their morale and helping them move past conflicts.

The Cons of Collaborative Conflict Resolution

This conflict management style also has several cons. We’ll discuss a few of them below.

Requires a Time Investment

Implementing collaborative conflict resolution demands significant time and resource investment.

Thorough discussions, active participation, and exploring multiple perspectives take time. The process may require patience and dedication to ensure all voices are heard and meaningful resolutions are reached.

Consensus-Building Can Be Difficult

Achieving consensus in collaborative conflict resolution can be a complex process that requires various collaborative skills .

Balancing different perspectives, reaching agreements, and satisfying all parties’ needs requires careful navigation.

Conflicting opinions, varying conflict goals, and emotional variables can make the consensus-building process challenging and time-consuming.

Potential for Manipulation

People with strong personalities, more power, or better communication skills can manipulate the collaborative conflict resolution process to their advantage, undermining the resolution’s fairness and effectiveness.

It’s crucial to ensure that all participants have an equal opportunity to contribute and that power imbalances are addressed to maintain a truly collaborative environment.

Harmful Misconceptions About Conflict Resolution

Be wary of misconceptions, as they can get in the way of effective conflict resolution in your workplace.

They include the following.

Thinking Conflict Is Always Negative

We tend to think of conflict as negative or something to avoid.

But when conflict is seen as a natural process — not something to fear — a healthier handling of the conflict results.

Conflict is something that should be embraced, as working through it is a chance for each party to make improvements. Every collaborative leader knows this.

Thinking Conflict Is Always Confrontational

Part of the reason we often avoid conflict is that we often think of it as something that requires confrontation.

But disagreements don’t have to lead to long-term division. Conflicts can be resolved without hurtful language or subverting the opponent’s position.

Thinking Conflict Always Has Winners and Losers

If a team member believes that there’ll always be winners and losers in a conflict, they’ll fight at all costs to make sure they win.

Shifting your team’s mindset to craft mutually beneficial solutions allows for a collaborative resolution to occur.

How to Use Collaborative Conflict Resolutions in a Hybrid Workplace

Consider the following strategies for effectively applying collaborative conflict resolutions in a hybrid workplace.

Establish Communication Standards

In a hybrid workplace with dispersed team members, it’s crucial to establish clear communication norms that promote open dialogue and mutual understanding.

Define guidelines for virtual communication, encourage active participation, and establish channels for transparent and efficient information-sharing.

Use Digital Tools

Employ collaborative tools , such as video conferencing for face-to-face interaction, collaborative document editing for real-time brainstorming and decision-making, and project management software to streamline workflows and encourage accountability.

Provide Conflict Resolution Training

By prioritizing active listening, empathy, negotiation, and problem-solving, managers can equip employees with the necessary tools to effectively navigate conflicts in a hybrid setting.

This training will help team members understand and adapt to different communication channels, maintain clarity in their virtual interactions, and foster a culture of constructive conflict management.

Plan Team-Building Activities

Building rapport and trust among team members is essential for effective conflict resolution in a hybrid workplace.

Virtual team-building activities can help foster a sense of camaraderie and collaboration.

So don’t just reactively manage conflicts — build a sense of teamwork and shared purpose into your work culture.

Unlock the Power of the Collaborating Conflict Style

Now that you understand how the collaborating conflict style works, you can employ it in your workplace to create a stronger, more resilient organizational culture.

As a business owner, you have a lot more than just conflicts to manage. So why not use the most powerful hybrid work software around?

OfficeRnD Hybrid can save you many headaches by taking care of visual desk booking, conference room scheduling,, visitor management system, and more.

Plus, its set of collaborative features promote face-to-face interactions for better collaboration and productivity.

Get started for free with OfficeRnD Hybrid and see for yourself!

Why Is Collaboration Better Than Competition?

Collaboration is better than competition because it promotes synergy, builds positive relationships, and focuses on long-term success rather than a win-lose mentality.

How Does Collaboration Resolve Conflict?

Collaboration resolves conflict by encouraging active listening, finding common ground, and promoting problem-solving and compromise to reach mutually beneficial solutions.

How Do You Build Strong Collaboration?

You can build strong collaboration by establishing a shared purpose, cultivating trust, encouraging active participation, and promoting effective communication.

Is Collaboration a Conflict Style?

Collaboration is often considered a conflict resolution style rather than a conflict style itself. It’s one of the strategies used to approach and resolve disagreements or conflicts.

The collaboration style aims to address the concerns of all parties involved in the conflict by finding a mutually acceptable solution that, ideally, satisfies all their underlying needs and interests. This approach is often seen as a win-win situation where all parties work together to find a solution that benefits everyone.

Why is Collaborating Conflict Style the Best?

Collaborating as a conflict resolution style is often considered highly effective and is seen by many as the “best” approach in certain situations.

However, it’s essential to recognize that what may be considered the best approach can vary depending on the context, the relationship between the parties, the nature of the conflict, and the desired outcomes. Here’s why collaboration is often highly regarded:

• Win-Win Outcome: Collaboration seeks a solution that fully satisfies the concerns of all parties. Unlike compromise, where each party may have to give something up, collaboration aims to find an innovative solution where everyone wins.
• Builds Relationships: By working together to find a solution, parties often develop a deeper understanding of each other’s needs and concerns. This can lead to increased trust and a stronger relationship in the long run.
• Highly Creative: Collaborative solutions often require creative thinking and problem-solving, allowing for innovative solutions that might not have been considered with a more confrontational or competitive approach.
• Long-Term Solution: Solutions reached through collaboration are often more durable and satisfactory in the long term because they address the underlying needs and interests of all parties.
• Enhances Communication: Collaboration encourages open communication, empathy, and active listening. This helps all parties involved to understand each other better, reducing misunderstandings and promoting a more harmonious relationship.

Is Collaboration the Most Preferred Style of Conflict?

Collaboration is often considered a highly effective conflict resolution style, particularly when building trust and finding win-win solutions is essential. However, its preference depends on various factors such as the nature of the conflict, relationships, time constraints, and specific needs of the situation. Different conflicts may call for different approaches, and collaboration may not always be the most suitable method.

Miro Miroslavov

Related articles, 11 top coworking conferences you must attend in 2024.

These are the best coworking conferences that you don't want to miss in 2024.

Welcome to the Team, Crispin Piney!

Crispin Piney Joins OfficeRnD as Managing Director of UK & Ireland.

The Seamless Integration Between OfficeRnD and Stripe 2.0

Check out why our integration with Stripe 2.0 will be a transformative experience for many.

Coworking Space Day Passes: A Complete Guide [2024]

Learn how using day passes can boost your coworking spae revenue.

Creating A Modern Organizational Sustainability Strategy

Learn how to integrate sustainability in your business efforts. Hint: hybrid work helps.

14 Marketing Strategies For Coworking Spaces

Use these strategies to attract more members to your coworking space and increase revenue.

Stay up to date with coworking and hybrid work insights, product highlights, company news and upcoming webinars and eBooks.

©2024 OfficeRnD. All Rights Reserved.

• Hybrid Workplace Software
• Hybrid Work Enablement
• Hot Desking and Hoteling
• Space Management
• Desk Booking Software
• Room Scheduling System
• Employee Experience
• Microsoft Experience
• Google Experience
• Coworking Software
• Coworking Management
• Flex Platform for Landlords
• Enterprise Flex Platform
• Integrations
• Support & Learning
• Roadmap & Product news
• Hybrid Work Resources
• FlexIndex & Insights
• Flex Academy
• Terms & Conditions
• Service Level Agreement
• Privacy Policy

UTS Wordmark SVG

Hr home link, breadcrumbs, subsite page title, understanding conflict handling styles, main page content.

In a dispute, it's often easier to describe how others respond than to evaluate how we respond. Each of us has a predominant conflict style. With a better understanding of the impact our personal conflict style has on other people, we can consciously choose how to respond to others in a conflict situation.

Value of own issue/goal: High Value of relationship: Low Result: I win, you lose

Competitors come across as aggressive, autocratic, confrontational and intimidating. A competitive style is an attempt to gain power and pressure a change. A competitive style can be appropriate when you have to implement an unpopular decision, make a quick decision, the decision is vital in a crisis or it is important to let others know how important an issue is to you – "standing up for your right." However, relationships can be harmed beyond repair or others may feel they have to use covert methods to get their needs met.

Accommodating

Value of own issue/goal: Low Value relationship: High Result: I lose, you win

Accommodators set aside their own needs because they want to please others in order to keep the peace. Smoothing or harmonizing can result in a false solution to a problem and can result in feelings ranging from anger to pleasure. Accommodators are unassertive and cooperative and may play the role of a martyr, complainer or saboteur. Accommodation is useful when admitting you are wrong or when you want to minimize losses to preserve relationships. However, it can become competitive – "I am nicer than you are" – and may result in reduced creativity and increased power imbalances.

Value of own issue/goal: Low Value of relationship: Low Result: I lose, you lose

Avoiders deliberately ignore or withdraw from a conflict rather than face it. Avoiders do not seem to care about their issue or the issues of others. People who avoid the situation hope the problem will go away, resolve itself without their involvement or rely on others to take the responsibility. Avoidance can be appropriate when you need more time to think and process, time constraints demand a delay, or the risk of confrontation is not worth what might be gained. However, avoidance is destructive if the other person perceives that you don’t care enough to engage. By not dealing with the conflict, this style allows the conflict to simmer, potentially resulting in angry or negative outbursts.

Compromising

Value of own issue/goal: Medium Value of relationship: Medium Result: I win some, you win some

Compromisers are willing to sacrifice some of their goals and persuade others to give up theirs, too–give a little, get a little. Compromise maintains the relationship and can take less time than other methods but resolutions may focus on demands rather than needs or goals. The compromise is not necessarily intended to make all parties happy or result in a decision that makes the most business sense, but rather ensures the decision is just and equitable, even if it causes a loss for both parties. Power is defined by what one party can coerce or get the other to give up. To split the difference, game-playing can result in an outcome that is less creative and ideal.

Collaborating

Value of own issue/goal: High Value of relationship: High Result: I win, you win

Collaboration generates creative solutions that satisfy all the parties’ concerns and needs. Collaborators identify the underlying concerns, test assumptions and understand the views of others. Collaboration fosters respect, trust and builds relationships. Collaborators address the conflict directly and in a way that expresses willingness for all parties to get what they need. However, collaboration takes time so if the relationship is not important it may not be worth the time and energy to create a win-win solution.

In any conflict ask, "Is my preferred conflict handling style the very best I can use to resolve this conflict or solve this problem?"

Focus on Interests (Needs), Not Positions (Wants)

Understanding people's interests is not a simple task because we tend to communicate our positions – things that are likely to be concrete and explicit. Try to recognize the difference between positions and interests to assist in creative problem-solving.

• Positions are predetermined solutions or demands that people use to describe what they want to happen on a particular issue. For example, "I want the report."
• Interests define the problem and may be intangible, unexpressed or inconsistent. They are the motivation behind the position—the “why.” Conflict usually exists when motivations/needs are not understood or mismatch in some way. For example, "I need to receive the report by Friday, so I can have time to review and edit before the due date next Wednesday."

Remember that understanding your own interests is just as important as figuring out the other person’s interests.

How to Identify Interests

To identify interests, ask questions to determine what the person believes he or she truly needs. Be sure to clarify that you are not asking questions for justification of their position, but for a better understanding of their needs, fears, hopes and desires.

Using open-ended questions that encourage a person to "tell their story" helps you better understand their interests. Open-ended questions are opposite of closed-ended questions, which require a response of "yes" or "no." To illustrate the difference, consider the following example:

• Did you have a good relationship with your manager? (closed-ended)
• What is your relationship with your manager like? (open-ended)

Examples of open-ended questions:

• What’s your basic concern about …?
• What do you think about …?
• How could we fix …?
• What would happen if …?
• How else could you do …?
• What could you tell me about …?
• Could you help me understand …?
• What do you think you will lose if you …?
• What have you tried before?
• What do you want to do next?
• How can I be of help?

It is not uncommon for you or the other person to have multiple interests. Problem solving based on interests leads to more creative and successful resolutions.

From the Conflict Management and Dispute Resolution Office at the University of Texas at Austin.

Listening Effectively

Workplace Conflict

Back to Employee Relations

Collaborating Conflict Resolution Style: Everything You Need to Know

Conflict is an inherent and unavoidable aspect of both personal and professional interactions. The manner in which we manage these conflicts significantly impacts the health of those relationships and our collective achievements. This highlights the importance of effective conflict resolution .

The collaborative conflict resolution style is one of the most effective approaches to dealing with disagreements. This style emphasizes a win-win outcome for everyone involved. But what exactly does this mean, and how does it look in practice?

The collaborating conflict style champions cooperation. In this conflict style, all parties involved actively work together to find a solution that addresses everyone’s core concerns. This isn’t simply splitting the difference but digging deeper to uncover the underlying needs and interests of those in conflict. The goal is to reach a solution that satisfies everyone, strengthening relationships in the process.

It’s easy to mix up the collaborating style with the compromising style in conflict management. In the compromising style, each person gives up something to reach a middle ground. Collaboration, however, is about finding a creative solution that doesn’t require significant sacrifices for any of the parties.

The Importance of Collaborative Conflict Resolution in Today’s Complex World

Collaboration offers a powerful tool for navigating complex challenges. Here are five key reasons why this approach is essential:

1. Finding Sustainable, Win-Win Outcomes

The collaborative conflict style goes beyond quick fixes. It aims to uncover the root causes of a disagreement and develop a mutually acceptable solution that benefits all parties involved. This leads to more lasting resolutions, minimizing the likelihood of the same issues resurfacing.

2. Fostering Innovation and Creativity

When people feel heard and understood, they’re more willing to think outside the box. The collaborating style establishes a safe space for open communication, brainstorming, and exploration of unconventional solutions. This can unlock groundbreaking ideas that wouldn’t be possible under a confrontational conflict management style.

3. Building Stronger Relationships

Effective conflict resolution isn’t just about the immediate issue—it’s about nurturing relationships. The collaborating style emphasizes empathy and mutual respect. By working together to address challenges, the parties involved deepen their understanding of each other’s perspectives and build trust.

4. Promoting a More Harmonious Environment

The collaborating style has a positive ripple effect on the overall atmosphere. When individuals see collaborative approaches succeed, it fosters a culture of cooperation. This can lead to fewer instances of conflict, less reliance on adversarial strategies like the competing style, and a generally more supportive and productive environment.

5. Avoiding Escalation and Personal Attacks

Conflicts left unresolved can quickly descend into harmful territory. Instead of focusing on “winning,” collaboration emphasizes problem-solving. This reduces the tendency for defensiveness, blame, or personal attacks, often seen in the accommodating style or a combative conflict management style.

By choosing collaborating styles for conflict resolution over the accommodating style, we invest in productive problem-solving, innovation, stronger relationships, and a more positive, cooperative atmosphere.

How the Collaborating Conflict Resolution Style Manifests in the Workplace

The collaborating conflict style translates into tangible workplace practices. Here are five ways it comes to life, with examples to illustrate:

1. Prioritizing Open Dialogue

In a collaborative workplace, honest and respectful communication is the norm. Team members feel comfortable sharing their concerns, ideas, and opinions without fear of judgment. This open dialogue forms the foundation for addressing conflicts productively, leading to a better understanding of the challenges at hand.

Example: A team experiences tension over project deadlines. Instead of assigning blame, they hold a meeting where each member can voice their challenges and contribute to problem-solving.

2. Exploring Diverse Perspectives

Collaboration recognizes the value of different perspectives. It encourages active listening and consideration of all viewpoints. This approach often uncovers hidden insights and creates space for more comprehensive solutions.

Example: Two departments clash over resources. Instead of escalating the issue, a cross-departmental meeting is held to understand each team’s needs. This leads to the discovery of potential resource-sharing opportunities.

3. Emphasizing Shared Goals

The collaborating style shifts the focus from individual wins to collective success. It aligns the parties involved around a shared purpose and motivates them to find solutions that benefit the greater good.

Example: A marketing team member disagrees on campaign strategy. Instead of getting locked in internal competition, they revisit the campaign’s objectives, leading to a more cohesive and impactful approach.

4. Encourage Accountability and Shared Responsibility

A collaborative conflict management style empowers everyone involved to be part of the solution. This sense of shared responsibility naturally translates into greater accountability, as individuals are motivated to follow through on agreed-upon actions.

Example: A client expresses dissatisfaction with a delivered product. The team rallies together, avoiding finger-pointing, and works collaboratively to analyze feedback and create an improvement plan.

5. Proactive Problem-Solving vs. Reactivity

The collaborating style promotes moving away from the avoiding style or purely reactive conflict management approaches. It emphasizes seeking out and addressing potential issues early on, even before they escalate into major disputes.

Example: Instead of waiting for a performance issue to create conflict, a manager regularly meets with team members to proactively discuss bottlenecks and brainstorm alternative solutions to ensure a smooth workflow.

Adopting a collaborative conflict resolution approach can revolutionize the work environment. It replaces power struggles with teamwork, defensiveness with effective communication, and a focus on finding a middle ground with an emphasis on finding solutions that solve problems for everyone.

Examples of Situations Where the Collaborating Conflict Resolution Style Shines

The collaborating conflict style can be applied to various workplace situations, some of which include:

1. Resource Allocation Disputes

Departments or teams often conflict over shared resources, such as budget, personnel, or equipment. A collaborative approach involves all parties brainstorming ways to maximize the available resources, potentially leading to joint projects, staggered usage schedules, or resource pooling.

2. Strategic Disagreements

When teams or executives face major decision-making crossroads, differing opinions can create tension. The collaborating style establishes a forum for respectful debate and exploration of each viewpoint’s merits. This can lead to a hybrid solution that addresses everyone’s concerns and exceeds the quality of any single initial proposal.

3. Project Bottlenecks

Unexpected delays or obstacles in a project can quickly derail progress and lead to finger-pointing. Instead of getting stuck in blame games, the collaborating style brings the relevant team members together to identify the issue’s root cause and creatively re-strategize to get the project back on track.

4. Interpersonal Tensions

Conflicts between two employees can impact the whole team’s dynamic. A collaborative approach, facilitated by a manager or HR, helps individuals better understand each other’s perspectives, identify common ground points, and negotiate solutions that improve their working relationship.

5. Addressing Low Morale

A collaborative conflict management approach is crucial when a team or department experiences a significant amount of dissatisfaction or low morale. Leaders openly engage with employees to listen to their concerns, understand underlying challenges, and jointly develop strategies to improve the situation, which can resolve issues and build relationships and trust.

While the collaborating style is powerful, it’s not always the most suitable approach. It requires time and energy, making it less ideal for urgent or minor issues where other styles of conflict management might be a better fit.

Benefits of Collaborative Conflict Resolution Training for Individuals and Organizations

Collaborative skills don’t develop overnight. Targeted training provides individuals and organizations with the tools and framework to effectively adopt the collaborating conflict style.

1. Enhanced Problem-Solving Abilities

Collaborative conflict resolution training dives deep into techniques for identifying the root causes of conflict, active listening, and creative brainstorming. This translates into better solutions that address everyone’s interests and prevent problems from recurring.

2. Improved Communication and Relationship Building

The collaborating style emphasizes empathy, respectful communication, and acknowledging differing perspectives. Training helps individuals hone these skills, leading to stronger relationships inside and outside the workplace.

3. Increased Productivity and Efficiency

Unmanaged conflict wastes time, resources, and energy. By teaching an effective conflict management style , collaborative training enables individuals and teams to resolve issues quickly and efficiently, returning to core tasks with renewed focus.

4. Fostering a Culture of Collaboration

When individuals are more adept at collaboration, it creates a ripple effect throughout the organization. This leads to a more cooperative and supportive environment, reducing the likelihood of future conflicts and boosting overall productivity.

5. Boosted Morale and Employee Retention

A workplace where people feel heard, respected, and capable of resolving issues constructively is a more positive place to work. Collaborative training can lead to higher morale, job satisfaction, and employee loyalty.

While the collaborating conflict style can be more time-consuming than other approaches, like compromise, the benefits far outweigh the initial investment. By providing collaborative conflict resolution training, organizations and individuals invest in a lasting skillset that empowers them to achieve their goals sustainably and harmoniously. The effort put in upfront pays off tenfold in the long run.

Benefits of Conflict Resolution Training for People With the Collaborating Conflict Style

If you naturally gravitate toward the collaborating conflict style, you already possess valuable strengths in conflict resolution. You likely understand the importance of open communication, exploring differing perspectives, and working toward solutions that benefit all involved. However, even the most naturally collaborative individuals can benefit from targeted training.

1. Refining Your Skills

Training can help you become even better at collaborating. It can teach you specific techniques for active listening, facilitating discussions, and brainstorming creative solutions that might not come intuitively.

2. Understanding Other Styles

While your preferred approach is collaboration, training exposes you to other conflict management styles when conflict arises. This understanding helps you recognize the approaches of others and adapt your own communication for more effective interactions with the full spectrum of personalities.

3. Dealing With Difficult Situations

Even with a strong collaborative approach, you’ll initially encounter situations where a different style may be more appropriate. Training helps you recognize those situations and temporarily adopt a different tactic to de-escalate or pave the way for later collaborative solutions.

4. Addressing Your Own Biases

Everyone has blind spots. Training can help you become more aware of subconscious biases that might hinder your ability to truly hear another party, find common ground, or brainstorm innovative solutions.

5. Gaining Confidence in High-Stakes Conflicts

When focused on critical or important issues, stress and the emotional stakes can increase. Training provides a framework and practiced techniques that allow you to remain calm, focused, and collaborative under pressure.

The Power of Collaboration

The collaborative approach to conflict resolution builds stronger relationships, unlocks innovation, and creates a more positive work environment. Ready to enhance your collaborative conflict resolution skills? Contact Resolve Conflict Resolution Training today to explore our tailored solutions for individuals and teams.

Share This Article

Related posts.

How To Handle Conflict in Meetings

Classroom Conflict Management & Resolution Strategies for Teachers

Conflict Management Styles: The Most Effective + Find Out Yours

Company info.

480-442-4838

2760 West Peoria Ave Phoenix, AZ 85029

[email protected]

OUR SERVICES

Free consultation.

© Copyright 2012 - 2024

5 Tools To Improve Workplace Culture Immediately

Download Your eBook Here

• Our Approach
• Our Programs
• Group Locations
• Member Success Stories
• Become a Member
• Vistage Events
• Vistage CEO Climb Events
• Vistage Webinars
• Research & Insights Articles
• Leadership Resource & PDF Center
• A Life of Climb: The CEO’s Journey Podcast
• Perspectives Magazine
• Vistage CEO Confidence Index
• What is Vistage?
• 7 Laws of Leadership
• The CEO’s Climb
• Coaching Qualifications
• Chair Academy
• Apply to be a Vistage Chair

Research & Insights

• Talent Management
• Customer Engagement
• Business Operations
• Personal Development

Communication & Alignment

Five Ways to Manage Conflict

Share this:

• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)

C onflict is a part of business life. In any given day, you may be involved in conflict as either a participant or an overseer. In each case you’re expected to play a role in the management of the conflict, hopefully in its constructive resolution.

Chances are you have a certain style for managing conflict. If you don’t think you do, your subordinates undoubtedly would attribute one to you. Perhaps you’re recognized as a skillful negotiator, a compromiser, or a dictator whose tolerance for conflict is minimal. To help clarify the alternatives available to you, here are five styles of conflict management, followed by a brief quiz to see whether you know the situations where each would be most effective.

• Forcing   All or nothing. Only one party can win – by force, if necessary.
• Avoiding  Stay out of it.
• Yielding  Withdraw and let the other party win.
• Compromising  Employ give-and-take so that the resulting agreement partially satisfies each of the conflicting parties.
• Problem solving  A collaboration which brings out and satisfies the fundamental concerns of each of the parties, perhaps after many time-consuming and soul-searching discussions.

Each conflict management style above is most appropriate to two of the situations listed below. See if you can determine the best style to each of the following:

• Wage negotiations with a union.
• As a user of financial reports, you have become involved in a conflict between the controllers office and top management.
• This afternoon’s management meeting has been called to determine space requirements in a new office building. Arguments have been heated. Recommendations must be submitted by the end of the day.
• 50% of a product run has been rejected by quality control. Changes must be made immediately and your subordinates disagree on what should be done.
• You’re having a running argument with marketing, which is committed to a huge advertising campaign for product features that you feel are impractical.
• An ongoing personality conflict has been hampering productivity among your subordinates.
• Two top managers are having a fight. You have a third option, but you know neither of them will like it.
• You know your people will react negatively to a new company policy, but you also know it’s in the company’s best interest.
• You are involved in a conflict with another department head, but you’ll need her support next month for a proposal of your own.
• You need agreement on the application of new office procedures. Your people have conflicting opinions.
• Forcing is best used when quick, decisive action is vital, such as in #4. It’s also necessary in situations where unpopular, but necessary policies or practices must be implemented (#8). If a situation is not critical, a forcing position can make lasting enemies.
• Avoiding conflict is a good posture in situations where you are an outsider (#2) or where you are relatively powerless (#7). It’s also appropriate when people (or you) are too emotional and need to cool down. In the long run, however, consistently avoiding conflict is a negative, branding you as someone with few options and little to contribute.
• Yielding can be very effective when you recognize that the issue is much more important to the other party then to you (#5) or where you want to gain allies (#9). If you’re going to yield, it’s important to do so on the right issues and before you become too committed to your own approach.
• Compromising is often the most appropriate mode when both parties have equal power, such as in union negotiations (#1). It also may be necessary when under time constraints (#3). Remember, however, that compromising always leaves each party somewhat disappointed, with unresolved issues that are sure to arise again.
• Problem-solving is the best mode for long-term results, but it doesn’t work in all circumstances. It works well when resolving personality conflicts (#6) and when cooperation and commitment are needed (#10).

The easiest conflict trap is to feel constrained to one method, because, perhaps, it’s the one that comes naturally to you. An understanding of alternatives, coupled with reflection prior to a confrontation, can result in choosing the most effective posture.

Some conflict styles back up others. Thus, if problem-solving doesn’t work, compromise, forcing, or yielding can be used.

The final word : Conflict resolution is not always possible. Remember, the objective is to manage conflict instead of letting conflict manage you.

About the Author:  John A. Page, LFHIMSS

John is an accomplished executive with impressive senior-level strategic management experience and success recognized industry-wide for contributions to healthcare information technology and management systems. Nationally respected on topics of social media, technology and strategic business alignment, he serves as a Vistage Chair and Host of CEOIntroNet TV Chicagoland as well as an advisor to Boards and business leaders.

Category: Communication & Alignment

Tags:   Conflict , Conflict Management , Problem Solving

John is a highly accomplished executive with impressive strategic leadership experience and success.  He is known as a change agent with expertise in defining business strategies and translating them into high-impact actions, new business op…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Gain deeper insights when you join Vistage

Take advantage of peer advisory group advice, 1-to-1 executive coaching, industry networks, exclusive events and more.

Privacy Policy

Your contact and business information will be used to fulfill this request and to share other Vistage services.

See Vistage's Privacy Policy for details.

Privacy Overview

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

9.3 Conflict Management

Learning objectives.

• Understand different ways to manage conflict.
• Understand your own communication style.
• Learn to stimulate conflict if needed.

There are a number of different ways of managing organizational conflict, which are highlighted in this section. Conflict management Resolving disagreements effectively. refers to resolving disagreements effectively.

Ways to Manage Conflict

Change the structure.

When structure is a cause of dysfunctional conflict, structural change can be the solution to resolving the conflict. Consider this situation. Vanessa, the lead engineer in charge of new product development, has submitted her components list to Tom, the procurement officer, for purchasing. Tom, as usual, has rejected two of the key components, refusing the expenditure on the purchase. Vanessa is furious, saying, “Every time I give you a request to buy a new part, you fight me on it. Why can’t you ever trust my judgment and honor my request?”

Tom counters, “You’re always choosing the newest, leading-edge parts—they’re hard to find and expensive to purchase. I’m supposed to keep costs down, and your requests always break my budget.”

“But when you don’t order the parts we need for a new product, you delay the whole project,” Vanessa says.

Sharon, the business unit’s vice president, hits upon a structural solution by stating, “From now on, both of you will be evaluated on the total cost and the overall performance of the product. You need to work together to keep component costs low while minimizing quality issues later on.” If the conflict is at an intergroup level, such as between two departments, a structural solution could be to have those two departments report to the same executive, who could align their previously incompatible goals.

Change the Composition of the Team

If the conflict is between team members, the easiest solution may be to change the composition of the team, separating the personalities that were at odds. In instances in which conflict is attributed to the widely different styles, values, and preferences of a small number of members, replacing some of these members may resolve the problem. If that’s not possible because everyone’s skills are needed on the team and substitutes aren’t available, consider a physical layout solution. Research has shown that when known antagonists are seated directly across from each other, the amount of conflict increases. However, when they are seated side by side, the conflict tends to decrease. Gordon, J., Mondy, R. W., Sharplin, A., & Premeaux, S. R. (1990). Management and organizational behavior (p. 540). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Create a Common Opposing Force

Group conflict within an organization can be mitigated by focusing attention on a common enemy such as the competition. For example, two software groups may be vying against each other for marketing dollars, each wanting to maximize advertising money devoted to their product. But by focusing attention on a competitor company, the groups may decide to work together to enhance the marketing effectiveness for the company as a whole. The “enemy” need not be another company—it could be a concept, such as a recession, that unites previously warring departments to save jobs during a downturn.

Consider Majority Rule

Sometimes a group conflict can be resolved through majority rule. That is, group members take a vote, and the idea with the most votes is the one that gets implemented. The majority rule approach can work if the participants feel that the procedure is fair. It is important to keep in mind that this strategy will become ineffective if used repeatedly with the same members typically winning. Moreover, the approach should be used sparingly. It should follow a healthy discussion of the issues and points of contention, not be a substitute for that discussion.

Problem Solve

Problem solving is a common approach to resolving conflict. In problem-solving mode, the individuals or groups in conflict are asked to focus on the problem, not on each other, and to uncover the root cause of the problem. This approach recognizes the rarity of one side being completely right and the other being completely wrong.

Conflict-Handling Styles

Individuals vary in the way that they handle conflicts. There are five common styles of handling conflicts.

These styles can be mapped onto a grid that shows the varying degree of cooperation and assertiveness each style entails. As we discuss each of these, consider your own conflict management style and what benefits or negatives you receive from this style.

Figure 9.5 Conflict-Handling Styles

The avoiding An uncooperative and unassertive conflict-handling style. style is uncooperative and unassertive. People exhibiting this style seek to avoid conflict altogether by denying that it is there. They are prone to postponing any decisions in which a conflict may arise. People using this style may say things such as, “I don’t really care if we work this out,” or “I don’t think there’s any problem. I feel fine about how things are.” Conflict avoidance may be habitual to some people because of personality traits such as the need for affiliation. While conflict avoidance may not be a significant problem if the issue at hand is trivial, it becomes a problem when individuals avoid confronting important issues because of a dislike for conflict or a perceived inability to handle the other party’s reactions.

Resolving Office Disputes

Tips on how to deal with workplace conflict.

Accommodation

The accommodating A cooperative and unassertive conflict-handling style. style is cooperative and unassertive. In this style, the person gives in to what the other side wants, even if it means giving up one’s personal goals. People who use this style may fear speaking up for themselves or they may place a higher value on the relationship, believing that disagreeing with an idea might be hurtful to the other person. They will say things such as, “Let’s do it your way” or “If it’s important to you, I can go along with it.” Accommodation may be an effective strategy if the issue at hand is more important to others compared to oneself. However, if a person perpetually uses this style, that individual may start to see that personal interests and well-being are neglected.

The compromising A middle-ground conflict-handling style, in which a person has some desire to express their own concerns and get their way but still respects the other person’s goals as well. style is a middle-ground style, in which individuals have some desire to express their own concerns and get their way but still respect the other person’s goals. The compromiser may say things such as, “Perhaps I ought to reconsider my initial position” or “Maybe we can both agree to give in a little.” In a compromise, each person sacrifices something valuable to them. For example, in 2005 the luxurious Lanesborough Hotel in London advertised incorrect nightly rates for £35, as opposed to £350. When the hotel received a large number of online bookings at this rate, the initial reaction was to insist that customers cancel their reservations and book at the correct rate. The situation was about to lead to a public relations crisis. As a result, they agreed to book the rooms at the advertised price for a maximum of three nights, thereby limiting the damage to the hotel’s bottom line as well as its reputation. Horowitz, A., Jacobson, D., Lasswell, M., & Thomas, O. (2006, January–February). 101 dumbest moments in business. Business 2.0 , 7 (1), 98–136.

Competition

People exhibiting a competing A conflict-handling style that is highly assertive but low on cooperation. style want to reach their goal or get their solution adopted regardless of what others say or how they feel. They are more interested in getting the outcome they want as opposed to keeping the other party happy, and they push for the deal they are interested in making. Competition may lead to poor relationships with others if one is always seeking to maximize their own outcomes at the expense of others’ well-being. This approach may be effective if one has strong moral objections to the alternatives or if the alternatives one is opposing are unethical or harmful.

Collaboration

The collaborating A conflict-handling style that is high on both assertiveness and cooperation. style is high on both assertiveness and cooperation. This is a strategy to use for achieving the best outcome from conflict—both sides argue for their position, supporting it with facts and rationale while listening attentively to the other side. The objective is to find a win–win solution to the problem in which both parties get what they want. They’ll challenge points but not each other. They’ll emphasize problem solving and integration of each other’s goals. For example, an employee who wants to complete a degree may have a conflict with management when he wants to reduce his work hours. Instead of taking opposing positions in which the employee defends his need to pursue his career goals while the manager emphasizes the company’s need for the employee, both parties may review alternatives to find an integrative solution. In the end, the employee may decide to pursue the degree while taking online classes, and the company may realize that paying for the employee’s tuition is a worthwhile investment. This may be a win–win solution to the problem in which no one gives up what is personally important, and every party gains something from the exchange.

Which Style Is Best?

Like much of organizational behavior, there is no one “right way” to deal with conflict. Much of the time it will depend on the situation. However, the collaborative style has the potential to be highly effective in many different situations.

We do know that most individuals have a dominant style that they tend to use most frequently. Think of your friend who is always looking for a fight or your coworker who always backs down from a disagreement. Successful individuals are able to match their style to the situation. There are times when avoiding a conflict can be a great choice. For example, if a driver cuts you off in traffic, ignoring it and going on with your day is a good alternative to “road rage.” However, if a colleague keeps claiming ownership of your ideas, it may be time for a confrontation. Allowing such intellectual plagiarism to continue could easily be more destructive to your career than confronting the individual. Research also shows that when it comes to dealing with conflict, managers prefer forcing, while their subordinates are more likely to engage in avoiding, accommodating, or compromising. Howat, G., & London, M. (1980). Attributions of conflict management strategies in supervisor-subordinate dyads. Journal of Applied Psychology , 65 , 172–75. It is also likely that individuals will respond similarly to the person engaging in conflict. For example, if one person is forcing, others are likely to respond with a forcing tactic as well.

What If You Don’t Have Enough Conflict Over Ideas?

Part of effective conflict management is knowing when proper stimulation is necessary. Many people think that conflict is inherently bad—that it undermines goals or shows that a group or meeting is not running smoothly. In fact, if there is no conflict, it may mean that people are silencing themselves and withholding their opinions. The reality is that within meaningful group discussions, there are usually varying opinions about the best course of action. If people are suppressing their opinions, the final result may not be the best solution. During healthy debates, people point out difficulties or weaknesses in a proposed alternative and can work together to solve them. The key to keeping the disagreement healthy is to keep the discussion focused on the task, not the personalities. For example, a comment such as “Jack’s ideas have never worked before. I doubt his current idea will be any better” is not constructive. Instead, a comment such as “This production step uses a degreaser that’s considered a hazardous material. Can we think of an alternative degreaser that’s nontoxic?” is more productive. It challenges the group to improve upon the existing idea.

Traditionally, Hewlett-Packard Development Company LP was known as a “nice” organization. Throughout its history, HP viewed itself as a scientific organization, and their culture valued teamwork and respect. But over time, HP learned that you can be “nice to death.” In fact, in the 1990s, HP found it difficult to partner with other organizations because of their culture differences. During role-plays created to help HP managers be more dynamic, the trainers had to modify several mock situations, because participants simply said, “That would never happen at HP,” over the smallest conflict. All this probably played a role in the discomfort many felt with Carly Fiorina’s style as CEO and the merge she orchestrated with Compaq Computer Corporation, which ultimately caused the board of directors to fire Fiorina. On the other hand, no one is calling HP “too nice” anymore.

Why Human Relations?

Every friendship, romantic relationship, or work situation has conflict. How we handle the conflict is what shows our positive human relations skills. Conflict management is a key skill to learn because we already know our personal happiness and career success depends on our ability to show positive human relations skills—even when conflict is present.

Conflicts can be minor disagreements or they can be major issues that can impede success among team members. Either way, the ability to handle and resolve the conflict are imperative to maintaining positive human relations in your work environment and in your personal life, too.

Conflict can be highly emotional, so having an awareness of our emotions during a conflict (self-awareness emotional intelligence skill) can prevent us from saying the wrong thing or saying something we will regret. If we can recognize how we feel during a conflict, such as angry, sad, or frustrated, we can begin to take steps to manage those emotions (self-management emotional intelligence skill). Once we are aware of and managing our emotions, it is much easier to work toward a solution during the conflict. Otherwise, our emotions may get the best of us, resulting in saying or doing something we regret—which doesn’t solve the conflict at all!

Key Takeaways

• Conflict management techniques include changing organizational structures to avoid built-in conflict, changing team members, creating a common “enemy,” using majority rules, and problem solving.
• Conflict management styles include accommodating others, avoiding the conflict, collaborating, competing, and compromising.
• People tend to have a dominant style. At times it makes sense to build in some conflict over ideas if none exists.
• List three ways to decrease a conflict situation. What are some pros and cons of each of these approaches?
• Do you deal with conflict differently with friends and family than you do at work? If so, why do you think that is?
• What is your usual conflict-handling style at work? Do you see it as effective or ineffective?
• Describe a situation in which not having enough conflict can be a problem.

• Courses Figures of Speech Parts of Speech Academic Writing Social Psychology Careers Soft Skills Organizational Behavior Organizational Communication Public Administration

Styles of Handling Conflict

• Credit | Trainers Library
• Five General Approaches to Managing Conflic

Scholars have devised various frameworks that highlight diverse approaches to handling conflicts. The initial formulation of the five primary styles for managing interpersonal conflict in organizational settings dates back to 1926 and is attributed to Mary P. Follet (1940).

Follet introduced three core constructs— domination, compromise, and integration —as the primary methods for addressing organizational conflict, along with two additional constructs— avoidance and suppression —recognized as secondary conflict-handling approaches.

In 1964, Blake and Mouton laid the foundation for a conceptual framework categorizing modes or styles for addressing interpersonal conflict, identifying five types:

• Withdrawing
• Compromising
• Problem-solving

They based these classifications on the manager's attitudes toward both production and people. Thomas (1976) later reinterpreted their scheme, emphasizing the party's intentions, specifically cooperativeness, in categorizing the conflict-handling modes into five types.

Rahim and Bonoma (1979) and Rahim (1983a) distinguished between interpersonal conflict-handling styles along two fundamental dimensions: concern for self and concern for others.

• The first dimension, concern for self, denotes the extent (high or low) to which an individual seeks to fulfill their own concerns.
• The second dimension, concern for others, signifies the extent (high or low) to which an individual aims to address the concerns of others.

These dimensions have been validated as representing the motivational orientations of an individual during conflict, with studies by Ruble and Thomas (1976) and Van de Vliert and Kabanoff (1990) offering general support for these dimensions.

The combination of these dimensions results in five specific styles of handling interpersonal conflict, as described below:

Integrating: High concern for self and others.

This style, also known as problem-solving, involves collaboration between parties through openness, information exchange, and examination of differences to reach a mutually acceptable solution. Follet (1926/1940) emphasized the importance of transparency and addressing the real issue for integration.

Obliging: Low concern for self and high concern for others.

An obliging style seeks to downplay differences and emphasize commonalities to satisfy the concerns of the other party. It may involve self-sacrifice, such as selfless generosity or obedience to another person's orders.

Dominating: High concern for self and low concern for others.

This assertive and uncooperative style is characterized by a win-lose orientation, where the dominating individual prioritizes winning at any cost, often neglecting the needs of the other party.

Avoiding: Low concern for self and others.

The avoiding style reflects low concern for both self and others, involving strategies such as withdrawal, sidestepping, or ignoring conflicts. This style is associated with an unconcerned attitude toward the issues or parties involved.

Compromising: Intermediate concern for self and others.

The compromising style combines cooperation and assertiveness, involving give-and-take negotiations and concessions to reach a mutually acceptable decision. It represents a middle-ground approach where both parties give up something for a satisfactory resolution.

Additional insights into these styles can be gained by reclassifying them according to game theory terminologies, such as positive-sum, zero-sum, or negative-sum styles.

Further insights can be obtained by organizing the styles based on the integrative and distributive dimensions of labor-management bargaining suggested by Walton and McKersie (1965).

The integrative dimension (integrating-avoiding) reflects the satisfaction of concerns for self and others, while the distributive dimension (dominating-obliging) represents the proportion of satisfaction for self and others. The appropriateness of each style is highlighted in specific situations:

• Integrating: Complex issues, synthesis of ideas, commitment needed, time available, collaborative resources required.
• Obliging: Belief in potential error, issue more important to the other party, willingness to sacrifice, dealing from a position of weakness, preserving relationships is crucial.
• Dominating: Trivial issue, need for a quick decision, implementing an unpopular course of action, overcoming assertive subordinates, costliness of an unfavorable decision by the other party, lack of expertise among subordinates.
• Avoiding: Trivial issue, potential dysfunction outweighs benefits of resolution, cooling-off period needed.
• Compromising: Mutually exclusive goals, equal power among parties, consensus is unattainable, integrating or dominating styles are ineffective, temporary solution to a complex problem needed.

Generally, integrating and to some extent compromising styles are suitable for strategic issues, while the remaining styles are applicable to tactical or day-to-day problems. This discussion on conflict-handling styles and their appropriateness in specific situations follows a normative approach to conflict management.

The appropriateness of each style is highlighted in specific situations:

Integrating:

• Where issues are complex.
• Where synthesis of ideas is needed to come up with better solutions.
• Where commitment is needed from other parties for successful implementation.
• Where time is available for problem-solving.
• Where one party alone cannot solve the problem.
• Where collaborative resources are required.
• You believe that you may be wrong.
• Issue is more impolirtant to the other party.
• You are willing to give up something in exchange for something from the other party.
• You are dealing from a position of weakness.
• Preserving relationship is important.

Dominating:

• Issue is trivial.
• Speedy decision is needed.
• Unpopular course of action is implemented.
• Necessary to overcome assertive subordinates.
• Unfavorably decision by the other party may be costly to you.
• Subordinates lack expertise to make technical decisions.
• Issue is important to you.
• Potential dysfunctional effect of confronting the other party outweighs benefits of resolution.
• Cooling off period is needed.

Compromising:

• Goals of parties are mutually exclusive.
• Parties are equally powerful.
• Consensus cannot be reached.
• Integrating or dominating style is not successful.
• Temporary solution to a complex problem is needed.

Similar Reads

• What is Conflict?
• Two Major Conflict Types
• Affective Conflict
• Cognitive Conflict
• Substantive Conflict
• Organizational Conflict
• Levels of Organizational Conflict
• Stages of Conflict and Factors Causing Conflict in Organizational Settings
• Direct versus Indirect Strategies in Conflict Management
• Organizational Behavior by John R. Schermerhorn, Jr., Richard N. Osborn, Mary Uhl-Bien, James G. Hunt
• Module 3: Managing Conflict and Workplace Relationships , By James O'Rourke, Sandra Collins

• Immerse in sound, unbound. Apple AirPods (3rd Gen) redefine wireless audio. Seamless connectivity, adaptive EQ, and a sleek design make these earbuds the perfect companions for your on-the-go lifestyle.

Trending Collections

Beats Studio Pro - Wireless Bluetooth Noise Cancelling Headphones - Spatial & Lossless Audio, Apple & Android Compatibility, Up to 40 Hours Battery Life - It delivers rich, immersive sound even while taking calls.

MYBAT PRO Maverick Series iPhone 15 Pro Max Case with Belt Clip Holster, with Screen Protector, 360°Rotating Kickstand + 4X TESTED MILITARY STANDARD (MIL-STD-810G 516.6).

This Pelican case designed for iPhone 15 Pro Max is made with multiple latches and anti-scratch coating that ensures your case looks newer for longer, while raised edges on both front & back protect the camera/screen.

Pelican iPhone 15 Pro / iPhone 15 Pro Max camera lens protector is made with aluminum rings and durable 9H tempered glass to provide unrivaled drop and reduces any chance of rear camera damage.

Meet the UGREEN Magnetic iPhone Stand built with 3 rotating shafts for adjustable angles & heights. Switch effortlessly between horizontal & vertical screens while watching Netflix, taking video calls, or reading.

WHOOP 4.0 is a unique wearable fitness device that offers continuous monitoring of physiological data, including heart rate, respiratory rate, resting heart rate, blood oxygen levels.

Apple iPad Pro 12.9-inch (6th Generation) with M2 chip, Liquid Retina XDR Display, 256GB, Wi-Fi 6E + 5G Cellular, 12MP front/12MP & 10MP Back Cameras, Face ID, All-Day Battery Life.

Apple 2023 MacBook Air Laptop with M2 chip: 15.3-inch Liquid Retina Display, 8GB Unified Memory, 256GB SSD Storage, 1080p FaceTime HD Camera, Touch ID. Works with iPhone/iPad; Space Gray.

HP Envy Laptop, 16" WQXGA Touch-Screen, Intel Core i9-13900H(Up to 5.4GHz, 14-Core), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060, 32GB DDR5, 2TB SSD, Wi-Fi 6E, Backlit Keyboard, Win11 Home, GM Accessory.

SAMSUNG 16" Galaxy Book3 Pro Business Laptop Computer/Windows 11 PRO / 32GB / 1TB, 13th Gen Intel® Core™ i7 processor, Intel® Evo™ platform, Lightweight, 2023 Model, NP964XFG-KC1US, Graphite.

HumanCentric Vertical Laptop Stand for Desks (Silver) | Adjustable Holder to Dock Apple MacBook, MacBook Pro, and Other Laptops to Organize Work & Home Office.

Lamicall Adjustable Laptop Stand, Portable Laptop Riser, Aluminum Laptop Stand for Desk Foldable, Ergonomic Computer Notebook Stand Holder for MacBook Air Pro, Dell XPS, HP (10-17.3'')

NOMATIC Backpack- Travel Carry On Backpack - Laptop Bag 20L - Water Resistant Travel Backpack - Traveling Carry On Backpack for Women and Men- Business Backpack - Personal Item Bag.

BANGE Business Laptop Smart backpack for men and women Can Hold 15.6 Inch Laptop. Its high-density coated oxford fabric not only waterproof to protect your goods in rainy days, but also offers scratch-resistant.

Recommended books to flex your knowledge.

Authored by Award-winning teacher and author Jonathan M. Bowman, "Nonverbal Communication: An Applied Approach" teaches students the fundamentals of nonverbal communication.

Explore the essence of facial expressions with "Anatomy of Facial Expressions" by Uldis Zarins. This insightful guide unveils the nuances of the face, differentiating between fake and genuine emotions.

Explore the captivating world of facial anatomy with "The Face: Pictorial Atlas of Clinical Anatomy, KVM, 2nd Edition." This edition is meticulously crafted for students, professionals, and anatomy enthusiasts.

Dive into the science of facial safety with "Facial Danger Zones" by Rod J Rohrich. This book maps out the potential risks in facial procedures, providing indispensable insights for anyone committed to facial aesthetics.

"Facial Expressions" by Mark Simon is an expertly crafted guide that delves into the intricate language of the face, offering a nuanced understanding of expressions and their storytelling power.

'Nonverbal Communication, 2nd Edition' by Judee K Burgoon explore the social and biological foundations of nonverbal communication as well as the expression of emotions, and interpersonal deception.

American Sign Language 101 is ideal for parents of nonverbal children or children with communication impairments (ages 3-6), American Sign Language for Kids offers a simple way to introduce both of you to ASL.

Speed read people, decipher body language, detect lies, and understand human nature. Is it possible to analyze people without them knowing. Yes, it is. Learn the keys to influencing and persuading others.

Eye contact is an important nonverbal social cue because it projects confidence and assertiveness. This book will turn you from that shy guy who rarely makes eye contact to the eye contact guru who makes elders nervous by looking them straight in the..

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

StatPearls [Internet].

Conflict management.

Yasmyne Ronquillo ; Vickie L. Ellis ; Tammy J. Toney-Butler .

Affiliations

Last Update: July 3, 2023 .

• Introduction

Conflict is the disagreement or difference of opinions between or among individuals that can be potentially harmful to any organization. In the workplace setting, it often involves personal agendas, insights, or goals versus the agendas, insights, or goals of the group or team. Conflict management seeks to resolve the disagreement or conflict with positive outcomes that satisfy all individuals involved or is beneficial to the group. However, the perception of conflict is often negative.

Conflict can, in fact, be positive if it is managed properly. Conflict can promote team-building skills, critical thinking, new ideas, and alternative resolutions. Conflict management is a crucial competency that leaders must possess, for the success of the team, group, unit, or employees they lead. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Providing conflict management skills could help raise the emotional intelligence of future managers. Excellent communication skills allow the manager to resolve interpersonal situations and conflicts. Mentoring new leaders is vital in bridging generational gaps and shaping the culture of the organization. Mentoring can assist a new leader in navigating the organizational hierarchy and developing a style of leadership that fits well within the charted course. [5] [6] [7]

Leadership style has a role to play in conflict resolution and overall team dynamics. 

Leadership Styles [8] [9] [10]

To prevent or limit conflict, leadership should seek the proper and impartial implementation of a professional code of conduct, ground rules, and discipline. [11]  Leadership is a process by which one person or a group sets the purpose or direction for others and helps them achieve goals. Leadership styles in healthcare were found to be strongly correlated with quality care and patient outcomes, such as 30-day mortality, safety, injuries, patient satisfaction, and pain. Leadership styles that proved more effective were those that emphasized a collaborative, multifaceted, and dynamic process. [12]

Servant Leader and Lean Leader

A servant-leader is where a person aspires to lead by servitude and ensures the needs of others are a priority. Servant leaders focus on the needs and growth of others, putting their well-being first, rather than their self-interests. This leadership style reflects a sharing of power, enabling others to perform at a higher level for personal growth. Servant leadership may provide the means to develop Lean leaders in the organization. The lean management style focuses on improving processes and eliminating waste. Lean and servant leadership could be combined to achieve high-quality and cost-effective patient-centered care. [13]

Transformational Leader

Transformational leaders assist an individual in the process of transformation where their own beliefs and values support or align with the organizational values. A transformational leader fosters an environment of trust, relationship building to meet common goals, and sharing of innovative ideas or long-term vision for the organization.

Transformative leaders can develop a trusting, relationship with their followers or team members, thus influencing their actions. The effect is a trickle-down outcome of conflict resolution in an environment built on mutual trust and the ability to mold an individual's response to a conflict or stressor for the greater good of the organization and population served. An ability to manage conflict effectively is a quality of a transformative leader. This leadership style has been demonstrated as a positive contributor to safety climate. [14]

Laissez-Faire Leader

Laissez-Faire leaders leave the decision-making to their followers or team members, lacking real authority within their organization, but responsible for group decisions and actions. The leader trusts the individual members of the team to problem solve, create new projects, make and meet goals, and self-monitor. This leadership style requires no real feedback, oversight, direct leadership, discipline, or praise. Thus, productivity may be low amongst some members of the group and lead to a source of conflict. This style was shown to negatively contribute to unit socialization and a culture of blame. [14]  

Authoritarian Leader

Authoritarian leaders lead by dictating and controlling the actions and decision-making capacity of the group. This leadership style reflects choices made based on their ideas, judgments, and personal beliefs, not those of their employees. Authoritarian leaders lead by enforcement and welcome little input from their team members or followers. 

Expecting a job to be done, focused on tasks rather than individuals performing those tasks, and the inability to accept input and give positive feedback yields an environment lacking in trust. Team members are not trusted, nor empowered to resolve conflicts on their own. Thus, the team dynamic may suffer long-term. Turnover in staff directly related to the inability to manage disputes and promote an environment that enriches positive growth and resolves conflicts. Nevertheless, the autocratic style is considered ideal in emergencies when the leader makes all decisions without taking into account the opinion of the staff. [12]

Transactional Leader

A transactional leader primarily focused on workflow. This leadership style may focus on incentives for "getting the job done" in a timely, efficient manner. Rewards for completing work on time or ahead of schedule, or penalties (disciplinary action) if the job delayed are components of this leadership style. These leaders may fail to plan for the future of the organization, focused only on the demands of the present. This leadership style may fail to promote and implement creative and innovative ideas necessary in a rapidly evolving health care industry.

Visionary Leader

A visionary leader has a vision or long-term goal. These leaders possess insight, imagination, and passion related to an innovative goal or idea. They are always looking out for the best interest of the team, promoting the sharing of ideas, creative goals, and a sense of empowerment to go beyond what is expected to create something unexpected.

A visionary leader fosters a healthy relationship with their team. Promoting entrepreneurial ideas and visions for the future, thus fostering a strong team dynamic capable of managing conflicts through open communication in a positive, nonadversarial manner.

• Issues of Concern

Conflict Management Styles (Thomas-Kilman Conflict Modes)

Conflict management styles take many forms and may reflect a particular style of leadership.

In this style of conflict management, some or all people involved in the conflict simply avoid the situation or ignore its existence. For the individuals involved, this is a losing situation in the long run. The conflict is unresolved. It continues to fester and build, creating more conflict. However, this style may be useful temporarily to de-escalate a very tense, non-emergency situation. 

Accommodative

In this style of conflict management, one party wins and one party loses. One opinion is accepted, and the other opinion is lost. The resolution will benefit one instead of all involved. For the person who manages the conflict, this becomes a sore spot and causes resentment. Although it may resolve the conflict, it may not satisfy all involved individuals. 

Competitive

In this style of conflict management, one party will win, and one party will lose. It will resolve the situation, but will not promote a unified or team approach to solving problems.

In this style of conflict management, neither party will be fully satisfied. The result will harbor resentment between those involved. In the resolution, each party sacrifices a portion of his or her solution. A significant part of the resolution can be left out, and the best outcome may not prevail.

Collaborative

In this style of conflict management, all parties involved are brought together for a resolution. Active listening, respectful communication, and an open mind are incorporated into the solution process for the best outcome. All parties involved have a say, and all parties involved reach a solution. This solution is accepted as the best outcome for all involved.

Steps To Conflict Management

• Before communication begins, set rules for respectful communication.
• Ask all involved to set aside preconceived opinions about each other.
• Ask all parties to engage in active listening without interruption.
• Ask all parties to write down the problem. Then restate the problem out loud. This provides understanding and agreement about the problem causing the conflict.
• Ask each party to come up with a solution. 
• Discuss each solution and the positive and negative aspects of each proposed solution.
• Clinical Significance

Resolution of conflicting views is of paramount importance in assuring that patients receive the best care possible. As such, it is important for healthcare providers to work together to achieve conflict resolution.

• Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

Respectful communication among all health care staff is the anchor to preventing conflicts. An interprofessional team must never lose sight of the collective overarching goal of excellent patient care. When conflicts arise, team cohesion is enhanced by a collaborative and timely resolution of conflicts.

• Review Questions
• Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
• Comment on this article.

Disclosure: Yasmyne Ronquillo declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Vickie Ellis declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Tammy Toney-Butler declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.

• Cite this Page Ronquillo Y, Ellis VL, Toney-Butler TJ. Conflict Management. [Updated 2023 Jul 3]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

In this Page

Bulk download.

• Bulk download StatPearls data from FTP

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• Five Tips for Successful Conflict Negotiation in the Breast Imaging Workplace. [J Breast Imaging. 2021] Five Tips for Successful Conflict Negotiation in the Breast Imaging Workplace. Fishman MDC, Slanetz PJ. J Breast Imaging. 2021 May 21; 3(3):381-386.
• "Should I Further Engage in Staff Care?": Employees' Disclosure, Leaders' Skills and Goal Conflict as Antecedents of Health-Oriented Leadership. [Int J Environ Res Public Healt...] "Should I Further Engage in Staff Care?": Employees' Disclosure, Leaders' Skills and Goal Conflict as Antecedents of Health-Oriented Leadership. Pischel S, Felfe J, Klebe L. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Dec 22; 20(1). Epub 2022 Dec 22.
• Conflict Management in Healthcare. [J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2019] Conflict Management in Healthcare. Piryani RM, Piryani S. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2019 Jan 28; 16(41):481-482. Epub 2019 Jan 28.
• Review Conflict management and resolution. [J Am Coll Radiol. 2006] Review Conflict management and resolution. Harolds J, Wood BP. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Mar; 3(3):200-6.
• Review Conflict in medical teams: opportunity or danger? [Med Educ. 2012] Review Conflict in medical teams: opportunity or danger? Greer LL, Saygi O, Aaldering H, de Dreu CK. Med Educ. 2012 Oct; 46(10):935-42.

Recent Activity

• Conflict Management - StatPearls Conflict Management - StatPearls

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Conflict Resolution in the Workplace: 9 Tips

We break down how to resolve conflicts at work and get employees on the same page.

Conflicts occur in every workplace. Whether it’s a disagreement about the best way to solve a problem or a clash of two different personalities, it’s only a matter of time until a conflict arises in your organization.

What Is Conflict Resolution?

Conflict resolution is the process of finding a peaceful solution to a dispute between two or more parties.

In this article, we’ll cover in more detail what conflict resolution is, why it’s important and how you can resolve conflict in the workplace.

Conflict resolution is the process of settling a dispute between two or more parties. Most commonly, this will be based on the principles of facilitative mediation, in which a mediator allows each party to share their side of the story, lead a discussion around the common points of contention and task participants with suggesting an agreeable resolution.

There is no silver bullet to conflict resolution, because every situation is different and involves different types of people with different experiences, perspectives and communication styles. But with the right communication tools, you can try to understand where each person is coming from and get both parties back on track and pulling in the same direction.

Related Reading What Are Interpersonal Skills?

How to Resolve Conflict in the Workplace

There are several different paths you can take to resolving conflicts. If you are leading the discussion, here are a few steps you can take:  

1. Address Conflicts Early

It’s best to resolve a conflict as soon as possible. When conflict lingers over time, it can become more difficult to address.

“What’s needed is a discussion from the start,” Leslie Nydick, CEO of The Conflict Strategist , told Built In. “It has to be multi-directional; It can’t be one-way communication.”

When people stop talking about something, that can lead them to make assumptions, which then leads to confusion, and ultimately, conflict, said Courtney Chicvak, a conflict resolution specialist and lecturer at Columbia University .

“People often don’t express their concerns or they let things simmer for much longer than they actually should, and eventually there’s a blow-up,” Chicvak told Built In. “It makes it much harder to show up and resolve an issue if there’s a blow-up.”

2. Choose a Facilitator

Employees might not want to express their opinions to their direct manager because they may see them as part of the problem. They might also hesitate to share their feelings with HR because they are afraid of getting fired or having negative information added to their file.

Some companies have established ombuds offices, which can informally discuss workplace issues and conflicts outside of HR channels. Companies might also bring in someone from outside the organization, like a mediator trained in facilitating dialogue in workplace conflicts.

3. Find a Private Place to Talk

Managers or mediators should find a private environment that encourages people to be vulnerable and share their feelings. If the two parties are particularly heated, the facilitator may have to deescalate the situation by separating them in different rooms.

4. Set Expectations and Ground Rules

If the two parties are going to be in the same room, the facilitator should set some clear ground rules, such as not interrupting when the other person is talking. The facilitator might also ask participants to limit the scope of the discussion to the conflict at hand and not bring up past conflicts or grievances. Both parties should be treated with dignity and respect, and the conversation should not turn into a debate about who is right and wrong.

5. Actively Listen to Both Sides

Both parties should have an opportunity to share their side of the story without interruption, and both parties should try to understand where the other party is coming from.

The facilitator and participants should both “dial up their curiosity,” Nydick said, and realize that they may not have all the answers. You never know what you may learn from listening to other sides of the story. 

“Focus on what the person is saying without planning how you’re going to respond,” Nydick added. “Don’t take up space in your mind thinking about how you experienced something similar. If you’re thinking about what you want to say next, you’re not listening.”

6. Clarify the Source of the Conflict

Many conflicts are like icebergs, according to Jennifer Libby, district manager at Insperity . Most of it is under the surface. That unaddressed tension could be personal, or it could be indicative of a much larger issue that needs to be addressed. 

Sometimes the source of the conflict may not always be apparent, or it may be obscured by another reason. By carefully listening to all sides, you should aim to identify a conflict that can be discussed and ultimately resolved with a potential solution.  

7. Ask Open-Ended Questions

When discussing the conflict, the facilitator should ask neutral, open-ended questions. They should not ask leading questions designed to confirm their suspicions, as these typically put people on the defensive and cause them to shut down.

Instead of asking questions that start with “why,” Nydick suggests starting questions with “how” or “what.” “Why would you do it that way?” is much more likely to put people on the defensive than “How did you decide to do that?” or “Help me understand your approach to that situation.”

Nydick also suggests people pause before responding, which will allow time to reflect on what someone has said and allow time to craft a more intentional question. She also suggests asking one question at a time to prevent issues from getting unnecessarily complicated.

For participants, Chicvak suggests using “I” statements as opposed to “you” statements. Instead of saying “you hurt my feelings,” you could say “I feel disrespected when you do that.”

8. Agree on a Solution

When working toward a conflict, a manager or HR person may try to bring the two sides together by acknowledging their shared goal. You can acknowledge that each employee has the right to their own opinions, but make it clear that the company has shared expectations and values around treating each other with respect. 

“The reason the values are so important is because it’s shared language,” Libby told Built In. “Before we were in conflict, we could agree on these things. That means we can agree on something again. You’ve planted some foreshadowing in their mind about that outcome.” 

Under a facilitative mediation approach, both employees are asked to come up with a resolution that they can both agree on. The thinking here is that the two parties know the intricacies of the situation better than anyone else and are thus best-equipped to come up with a solution. By coming up with their own solution, the two parties are also more likely to feel a sense of buy-in and work toward a successful outcome. 

“When something’s imposed upon you, you’re much less likely to actually do it,” Chicvak said. “Whereas if you came up with this idea, you have some investment in it, and you’re more likely to actually follow through.”

Once a solution has been reached, both parties should walk out of the meeting certain of what actions are required on their part and what could happen if a similar conflict occurs again.

9. Follow Up

You’ll want to monitor the relationship between the employees and check in with each of the two parties to gauge whether the agreed-upon plan of action has been effective in resolving the conflict. If it hasn’t been effective, you may want to meet with the two parties again to develop another solution.

As a manager or HR leader, you can also use this experience as a learning opportunity to understand which circumstances are likely to create conflict in the future. By learning about the root causes of conflict and honing your conflict resolution skills, you can create space for disagreement and transform conflict into a force for improvement and innovation.

Related Reading What Is Employee Relations?

Why Is Conflict Resolution Important?

Most people try to avoid conflict because it is uncomfortable. But Nydick argues that conflict is the result of different ideas, and that talking through those differences offers an opportunity to find a better way of working — and potentially a new business strategy.

Conflict resolution is also key for building a healthy company culture. A 2017 survey of 1,344 full-time employees found that 53 percent of employees ignore “toxic” situations. By taking swift action to resolve a conflict, managers can prevent an isolated conflict from spreading across the team, creating a toxic culture of division and resentment.

Failing to properly manage conflict at work can result in additional consequences:

• Poor productivity.  Employees spend more than four hours per week dealing with conflict at work, according to a Myers-Briggs study . That time could be better spent elsewhere.  
• Low job satisfaction.  Employees who spent more time dealing with conflict had lower job satisfaction , according to the Myers-Briggs study. And people who viewed themselves as good at managing conflict had higher levels of job satisfaction.  
• High turnover.  If employees are feeling stressed or resentful about unresolved conflict, they will likely leave at the first chance they get to find happier coworkers and a healthier company culture.

Types of Conflict in the Workplace

Workplace conflicts are generally either substantive conflicts or personality conflicts.

1. Substantive conflicts are rooted in the work of an organization. For example:

• Two workers from different departments clash due to conflicting priorities.
• Teammates disagree on the best strategy for a project.

2. Personality conflicts are disagreements driven by emotions. For example:

• An employee complains that their ideas aren’t being heard because their coworker dominates every discussion.
• An employee with an expressive communication style assumes their coworker does not like them because their messages are terse.

According to Libby, substantive conflicts are “usually not malicious,” but often rooted in a passion for the mission of the organization or the craft of their profession: “People have strong feelings about things, and they care how things are done.” If a conflict is simply interpersonal, Libby often suggests looking inward to see how one can improve the situation.

Conflict mediators will want to keep the type of conflict in mind, as it can help determine the appropriate course of action. For instance, the solution of a personality conflict may simply involve one person changing their behavior, while a substantive conflict may require multiple parties to meet and discuss a viable path toward collaboration.

Examples of Conflict in the Workplace

Workplace conflicts can show up in many different ways, such as:

• Team members are given shared responsibilities and it’s unclear who is responsible for certain tasks.
• Workers disagree with senior leadership’s strategy for the company and begin to complain about it to their managers.
• An employee argues with a coworker because they have different feelings about current events.
• A dispute arises between two company leaders over the allocation of resources for their respective departments.
• An employee feels frustrated when they don’t understand their manager’s directions and are blamed for not meeting expectations.
• An employee believes they were unfairly passed over for a promotion by their manager.
• An organizational restructuring leaves some workers feeling confused and frustrated about their roles.
• Some employees feel that their coworkers take an unfair amount of time off.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is conflict resolution.

Conflict resolution is the process of finding a solution to a dispute. In a workplace conflict, HR leaders, ombuds or third-party mediators will typically resolve a conflict by facilitating a dialogue between the two parties and finding a solution both parties can agree on.

What are the 5 conflict resolution strategies? 

Researchers Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann identified five strategies that people use to resolve conflicts: avoiding, competing, accommodating, collaborating and compromising. By identifying your conflict resolution strategy, you can learn how to become more assertive or cooperative to adapt to different personalities and situations.

Recent Employee Engagement Articles