Conflict Resolution Styles: Which One Do You Use?
After more than a decade mediating everything from explosive boardroom standoffs to quiet family blow-ups that spill into workplaces, I’ve learned one hard truth: most people don’t choose their conflict style—they fall into it like an old habit.
The Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument (TKI) provided us with a framework of five classic styles—competing, collaborating, compromising, accommodating, and avoiding—but real life isn’t a neat grid. It’s messy, emotional, and rarely black-and-white.
Trending Now!!:
I’ve seen brilliant leaders tank relationships by defaulting to one mode without realizing it. I’ve also watched quiet accommodators finally snap after years of swallowing their needs.
The goal isn’t to pick the “best” style; it’s to know yours, spot when it’s hurting more than helping, and flex to what the situation actually demands.
Competing: When You Have to Win, and Sometimes You Do
This is the high-assertiveness, low-cooperation mode—think “my way or the highway.” Early in my career, I was this guy more than I’d like to admit. In a high-stakes negotiation over budget cuts, I pushed my numbers hard, backed by data and deadlines.
The other side folded, we hit our targets, but the relationship? Scorched. Months later, that same colleague dragged their feet on every future request. Competing works when the issue is critical, time is short, or you’re protecting something non-negotiable—like ethics or safety.
I once intervened in a team where a manager was cutting corners on compliance; I competed hard, pulled rank if needed, and got the policy enforced. No regrets there. But overuse breeds resentment. If you’re always the shark in the room, people stop swimming near you.
Collaborating: The Gold Standard, but It Takes Time and Trust
Collaborating—high assertiveness and high cooperation—is where you dig for win-win solutions by exploring everyone’s underlying needs. This is often called the most effective conflict management style for long-term relationships, and I agree… when conditions allow.
A few years back, two senior team members were at war over project ownership. Deadlines loomed, egos were bruised. Instead of forcing a decision, we sat for hours unpacking our fears: one worried about visibility for promotion, the other about burnout from workload.
We redesigned roles so both got what they needed—better credit distribution and clearer boundaries. The project succeeded, and their working relationship actually strengthened. The catch? Collaborating eats time and requires psychological safety. If trust is low or urgency is high, it can backfire into endless meetings.
I’ve learned to ask myself: “Is this worth the investment?” If yes, collaborate. If not, pivot.
Compromising: The Practical Middle Ground
Compromising sits in the middle—moderate assertiveness, moderate cooperation. Everyone gives a little, gets a little. It’s the go-to when time is tight, but the issue matters enough not to ignore.
I remember a cross-departmental dispute over resource allocation during a crunch period. Marketing wanted more budget for ads; ops needed it for staffing. We couldn’t collaborate fully—too much pressure—so we split the difference: partial reallocation with a review in 30 days.
It wasn’t perfect, but it moved us forward without total winners or losers. Compromise keeps things moving, but I’ve seen it used as a lazy default. People slap a 50/50 band-aid on deep issues, resentment simmers, and the same fight resurfaces later.
True compromise works best when both sides value speed over perfection and accept the trade-offs.
Accommodating: Keeping the Peace (At What Cost?)
Accommodating means yielding—low assertiveness, high cooperation. You prioritize the relationship over your own goals. I’ve done this plenty, especially with volatile personalities or when mentoring juniors.
One mentee was adamant about a risky approach; I knew it could flop, but I accommodated to let them learn. It did flop—mildly—and they came back wiser, grateful I hadn’t steamrolled them. Accommodating builds loyalty when used sparingly.
But chronic accommodators burn out. I once coached a manager who always said yes to extra work to avoid friction. She ended up resentful, exhausted, and quietly job-hunting. The lesson? Accommodate when the issue is trivial or harmony truly matters more—but don’t make it your identity.
Avoiding: Sometimes the Smartest Move (Temporarily)
Avoiding—low assertiveness, low cooperation—gets a bad rap as cowardice, but that’s not always the case. Sidestepping lets emotions cool or buys time for better info. In one toxic team dynamic, two colleagues were constantly triggering each other.
I avoided forcing immediate confrontation; instead, I reassigned tasks temporarily and addressed root causes privately later. When we finally talked, the heat had dissipated, and resolution stuck.
Avoiding fails when issues fester—small misunderstandings grow into big rifts. I’ve regretted avoiding early signs of performance problems; they exploded later. Use avoidance strategically: for trivial stuff, cooling-off periods, or when you’re not ready. Don’t use it as a permanent denial.
Finding Your Default—and Breaking Free From It
Most of us lean toward one or two styles based on upbringing, personality, or past wins/losses. I started as a competitor, shifted toward collaborator as I gained confidence in listening, but still catch myself avoiding tough personal talks.
The real skill in conflict resolution isn’t mastering one style—it’s awareness and adaptability. Next time tension rises, pause and ask:
- How important is this issue to me?
- How important is the relationship?
- What’s the time pressure?
- What’s my gut default—and is it serving us?
Then choose. Sometimes you’ll compete to protect a boundary. Other times, you’ll collaborate for a breakthrough. Occasionally, you’ll compromise to keep momentum or accommodate to preserve goodwill.
Conflict isn’t the enemy; poor handling is. The styles from the Thomas-Kilmann model aren’t boxes to trap you—they’re tools to pick up as needed.
After years in the trenches, I’ve found that the people who resolve conflicts best aren’t the ones who never fight; they’re the ones who fight smarter, with self-awareness and flexibility. So, which style do you use most?
More importantly, which one do you need right now? Reflect on that the next time disagreement knocks. It might just turn your next clash into your best growth moment yet.
